I think the implication was that people were afraid of a terrorist attack during the act, not in retrospect when they saw it was just a white flag

That was my read as well. That 'people' were afraid it was a terrorist attack because the lights on a landmark went dark. On the other hand, why didn't people just assume it was a black-out, or technical issues?

Yeah, my first thought would have been "Dumbasses should change the lights during the day, not the night". "Terrorists must be terrorizing us by breaking our lightbulbs" would have never occurred to me; it is far more plausible that somebody was working on them.

Well, the biggest terrorist attack on American soil did happen about a mile away from there. Maybe that has something to do with it.

I considered that, and I think it might excuse "Boston mooninite" sorts of paranoia, but seeing lights turn off on a landmark and jumping to the "terrorists" conclusion? Nearly 13 years later? This wasn't a low-flying plane or an odd device with blinking lights, this was just some lightbulbs going out.

But was it a prank? That's the question that has everyone nervous. Because if not, it was art. Given the context of modern politics, officials don't want it to be art. Imagine this happened on 4 or 5 different land marks on the same day. Officials would be shitting themselves.

In Glasgow, this kind of thing does happen every day. At least to the Duke of Wellington.

You know at this point I would be shocked and surprised if they don't invoke "terror fears" one every single incident. Someone forgets a bag in the park -- "terror fear". Someone runs a red light -- "terror fears". Defacing of a lamp post "terror fears". It is as if they don't get paid or if they don't mention it.

If they don't say it's terrorism, how are they going to justify the 30-year maximum-security prison sentence they hand out to whatever group of kids carried out this totally harmless prank?

That's what I tought as well. Terror terror terror. Fear fear fear. It's getting ridiculous.

If someone could do this without being caught what would stop someone else from doing something sinister and deadly? That's how I took it.

People have always been able to do sinister and deadly things. The reason that they do not happen more often is largely not because of people stopping them, but is rather because not many people are really that nuts.

The ability of pranksters to switch flags on a bridge does not make your world more risky. A heavy handed state triggering paranoid reactions from the mentally ill may well do.