
Man suspected of wearing 'bomb' watch at airport released, no charges filed - ck2
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_22028159/oakland-man-suspected-wearing-sophisticated-bomb-watch-at
======
leejoramo
_was later released after he posted $150,000 bail._

So for being completely innocent, he is likely out $15,000 plus attorney's
fees and lost work time.

I did database programming back in the early 1990's for a California bail
bonding company. As I recall the standard cost for a bail bond was 10% which
does not get refunded. This is in addition to someone fronting $150,000 of
collateral to secure the bond.

You can post the $150,000 directly with the court and avoid the bond costs.
Even if you are rich and have the cash sitting in an account it can take many
days to co-ordinate the transfer of cash. (Plus you will have to prove to the
court that it is not funds obtained from a criminal enterprise.)

I recall several cases where it appeared that the arresting cops knew there
was no case, but figured that they could punish someone due to the cost of the
bail fees before the District Attorney, Judges and Juries even got involved.

Basically, the TSA can in effectively fine someone $15,000 at anytime through
the extrajudicial punishment.

~~~
tadfisher
This is exactly why bail bonds should be prohibited, or at least why bail
schedules should be set on a sliding scale based on the accused's income. I
can't fathom how it benefits society to have $150,000 loaned out at
effectively 3000% interest. We punish payday lenders for this behavior.

------
JonnieCache
_McGann "is not an activist or a terrorist," Horngrad said._

This sentence is utterly terrifying. Or at least it would be were I american.

~~~
aes256
It's not as though they are being treated as equivalent, they are just
potential explanations for this kind of behavior (carrying an improvised
electrical device, which would make a viable timer for an explosive device,
through airport security)

First they establish if he has any malicious intent (i.e. is he a terrorist?),
then they establish if he has a legitimate non-malicious reason for such odd
behavior (i.e. is he an activist?)

Turns out this guy is just a little unhinged.

~~~
JonnieCache
Language defines thought, and thought informs behaviour. To use the two words
in the same sentence like that is to treat the two concepts as equivalent, and
to promote their equivalence in future.

~~~
aes256
There are, actually, many similarities. Both groups of people defy social
norms and seek publicity in the course of acting out grievances with the
establishment.

Activism and terrorism are often one and the same. I don't think it's unfair
to describe 9/11 and similar terrorist attacks as forms of activism — not that
this in any way justifies the attacks — nor to apply the 'terrorism' label to
many self-described activists (e.g. Anonymous with their computer hacking)

~~~
king_jester
Terrorism and activism are both political, but I wouldn't call terror attacks
activism. They have different means and execution, even if they both strive
for political change. Not that this distinction is helped by how politicians
love to paint activists as terrorists for political purposes.

~~~
aes256
OED defines activism as: "The policy of active participation or engagement in
a particular sphere of activity; spec. the use of vigorous campaigning to
bring about political or social change."

Most contemporary terrorists (Islamic extremism being the most salient
example) are not terrorizing people for the fun of it. They want to bring
about political or social change. The 9/11 terrorists objected to U.S. foreign
policy, specifically its support for Israel and continued presence in Saudi
Arabia. Terror is just a campaigning tool.

I don't think politicians are too far off the mark when they describe certain
contemporary activists as terrorists. As I say, it's a very thin line, and
plenty of contemporary activists resort to terror tactics.

------
acabal
That watch is ridiculous--I certainly hope the TSA would stop someone wearing
that, and I doubt a regular agent is educated enough to decide whether or not
a homebrew contraption like that is dangerous. So _to a degree_ , TSA did the
smart thing.

The question becomes, was arresting him the right thing to do? Maybe it was--
if nobody in the airport had the expertise to decide that this thing that
looks like a Die-Hard-style bomb was not dangerous, maybe they had to hold him
until an expert could be located.

The other question is, were the charges dropped because he was innocent, or
were they dropped because he got media attention? That's probably the more
important question. Not everyone can get the news to write about them, and no
doubt many injustices in America and in the world get ignored precisely
_because_ they're ignored.

~~~
ck2
Wait, so bulky old electric devices (toggle switch and old school big fuses)
are scary things eh?

How about the fact practically everyone is carrying a smartphone that can be
far more easily used as a wireless trigger? You can do a frequency scan/pulse
with a phone with an app!

What if someone tried to get onto a plane with a smartphone without a cover
and all the electronics exposed, or a clear case?

Those xmas toys people carry on planes, even unwrapped, they contain far more
electronics and hiding places than that fake watch with electric fuses.

~~~
acabal
To you and me who understand how they work, no they are not scary.

To a TSA agent who probably has only a high-school education, a power trip,
and was raised in a culture where movie supervillains use bombs that look just
like that, yes, it's scary.

The right thing to do would have been to stop him in the line, bring in some
kind of expert to look it over, then let him get on to the plane. It looks
like they started on that path, but then went too far. That's where my
questions come in.

~~~
JonnieCache
Or one could choose not to employ such incompetent people to do such a
supposedly important job. Unfortunately that would threaten the margins, which
is what this is really about.

(These people are employed by private contractors, yes? If they're employed by
the state, then why are they hiring such morans?)

~~~
URSpider94
Nope, in all but a few airports (SFO being one), they are directly employed by
the TSA, a Federal agency. This was an upshot of 9-11, when private
contractors were criticized for hiring inappropriate employees.

------
ck2
Compare this to how the TSA was swearing up and down this guy was no good the
other day.

And they let him rot in jail while the charges were already dismissed.

Talk about a complete power-trip.

------
nicholassmith
The TSA seem to do a pretty large amount of stupid things, but this watch is
basically a nice way to poke a bear with a stick, and then appear surprised
when it attempts to eat your face. The TSA ate his face, the guy was
surprised.

I think I saw Boing Boing championing his cause, which isn't too unexpected,
but the guy must have known he was running the gauntlet and it detracts from
the actual batshit stuff the TSA do.

~~~
jamesbritt
Stopping and questioning him about his watch was not batshit. Having him
arrested was the actual batshit.

What's also batshit is the idea that people need to curtail their free speech
in order not to piss off some ill-trained goons managing a contrived state of
fear.

------
jack-r-abbit
I hate misleading headlines like that. To me that headline says "there _was_ a
bomb watch and this man was suspected for wearing it". But what really
happened was "the man did in fact wear a watch, which had been suspected of
being a bomb." In today's world, being labeled a "suspect" in some crime is
pretty much all it takes to ruin your life. While it may not have been smart
to wear that ugly watch in the airport, I'm not aware of any law he broke by
doing it. He did shine some light on how stupid the TSA actually is though.

------
Tloewald
The guy obviously made a watch designed to give the TSA conniptions (maybe
it's some kind of publicity stunt). Do large paramilitary organizations
staffed by idiots have a sense of humor? No. Surprise!

~~~
lucaspiller
"Nelson said even if McGann truly is innocent and didn't intend to harm
anyone, he still thinks that McGann showed "a lack of good judgment" and "was
not being very smart" in traveling with the watch."

~~~
ccozan
This. To me this was a raising brow thing when I read the article. Either is
this ingnorance of the current rules, or was a publicity stunt.

I know the rules, I follow them, thus never had any issues in airports. But
there is a golden rule: if you feel like you are probably going to break a
rule ( by carring somethin g strange, for example), do the first step. Always.
And it works. Heck, I moved a a few bottles of finest lager from Munich to NY,
I went to AA representative and after explained she agreed with me taking
them.

------
raldi
Whatever happened to Scott McGann, who was arrested at LaGuardia in 2009 for
having a power strip?

------
Shenglong
Somewhat off topic, but I can wear my solid steel watch through the metal
detectors at airports, and it won't set off the alarm (SF, Seattle, Toronto,
Halifax, Chicago, etc). Yet, a coin or a belt buckle will.

Anyone have an idea as to why?

~~~
mindslight
Based on my rudimentary knowledge of metal detectors, I'd guess that the
individual pieces are too small. I presume that you don't have a watch
resembling a shackle, and there is some non-metal/non-conducting linkage
between individual sections of the band that prevents it from having a large
inductive cross section. Either that, or the guy is too distracted by your
spiffy watch and forgets to press the button that makes it go beep beep beep.

