Thread for those who don't have an account: https://xcancel.com/s_heyneman/status/2014519007244656652
That said, your point is the correct one. In a normal setting, leaving a bag near your table while you check in is fine. In a high-security zone during WEF, placing a black box with wires on a bench is a massive red flag. I treated it like a backpack; they treated it like a potential threat. It was a hard lesson in situational awareness.
Based on what security is meant to do, Likewise.
Based on the lack of (apparent) self awareness of the author, I think I'd expect a little better of somebody using a device as a pitch-deck to the wealthy in a location of heightened security.
Is it security pantomime? yes. What did the OP expect? Is the OP really as naieve as they are saying? Was this not forseen/forseeable?
Being wise after the event means being wise. Does anyone else reading this think the OP was not wise?
I’ve walked around SF and NYC with prototypes for years without issue. I genuinely failed to code-switch for the environment. I expected a bag search; I didn't expect a 13-hour detention and a forensic code audit.
It felt like 'pantomime' at first, but once the forensic team arrived, it became very real. They weren't performing theater; they were genuinely verifying the interrupt handlers in the code.
If it looks like Osama bin Laden attending a War on Terror summit ... they'll wave it right through.
* https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2020/jan/20/how-the...
Not an especially wise move if unintended, and a precarious risk if intended fpr the drama.
I'm thinking my personal best time getting grilled over a suspected security issue runs to 36 hours or so .. hard to tell in retrospect, the US TLA bods do like their blinken lights and screeching music to mess with peoples internal clocks.
To get released, I had to walk a forensic expert ('Chris') through this codebase line-by-line. He didn't care about the pitch; he audited the Rust borrow checker logs, the specific hardware interrupts, and the encryption implementation to prove it wasn't a trigger mechanism.
It was the most aggressive code audit of my life. Happy to answer questions about the stack, the 'vibe coding' workflow I used to build it, or the Swiss prison lasagna."
To be precise with my terminology: I showed the forensic expert the terminal history and compiler output in my VS Code/Cursor logs.
Because I was 'vibe coding' with LLMs, I had a long scrollback of cargo build failing repeatedly with ownership/borrow errors. 'Chris' (the forensic expert) reviewed that timestamped history to verify that I was genuinely struggling to compile a harmless display driver in a hotel room that morning, rather than deploying a pre-compiled malicious payload.
His logic was essentially: 'A terrorist brings a clean binary. A developer brings a terminal full of red text.' The broken build state was my alibi.
They were incredibly professional. Once we moved past the initial 'threat assessment' phase, the officers and the forensic expert were fair, logical, and treated me well. The system worked exactly as it should for a suspicious package in a high-security zone.
That said, the scrutiny shifted quickly from the 'black box' visual to the actual tech. It wasn't just a physical inspection; they brought in a forensic expert to audit the Rust borrow checker logs and interrupt handlers to verify the triggers were benign. It turned into a very technical interview, just with higher stakes.
