Some useful advice to New Yorkers or NYC visitors on refusing the new subway searches,at flexyourrights.org, via bitchphd. As Mayor Bloomberg says:
"You can walk away if you don't want your bag searched; you just can't get on the subway. So we do it outside the turnstile. And there's no profiling."
Not sure I really believe that, but anyways, there's lots of interesting tidbits about (but virtually no criticism of) this new practice in this NYT article. If the search voluntary, as it must be, what the hell is it for?? Obviously, a terrorist can just leave and go to another entrance, like you can do if you have something illegal besides a bomb your bag. It seems, then that the primary purpose is to make people feel better, even if there's no way that this can actually reduce terrorism. Hence these kind of comments:
Eve Holbrook, 35, who works at a law firm, submitted to a search at the station without being asked. "It gives me a sense of comfort," she said. "I went up there of my own free will." James Murphy, 24, who traveled from Stamford, Conn., to Pelham, said that he was not optimistic about the searches being able to prevent a bombing, but that the policy made him feel safer. "What can it hurt?" he asked.
Well, I'd claim it can hurt plenty. Ms. Holbrook's reaction is apparently not an isolated one.
Luz Pabon.. offered up her bag yesterday at the 96th Street 6 train station without being asked. "True, it's obvious I'm not a terrorist, but if they want, they can look . . . so they'll know I'm not a suspect." Another volunteer, Margaret Debrah, said she offered her bag so cops "will know I'm not guilty."
Are these people really so concerned with proving their own innocence that they have missed the obvious fact that by submitting themselves voluntarily they are distracting the officers from finding real terrrorists (if such a thing was even possible using this method)? Amazingly enough, at least some cops seem themselves to wish to decrease their signal to noise: this NYPost article also describes how "cops at several stations yesterday allowed people who'd been searched to enter the system without paying." One can only imagine that this practice will encourage non-terrorists to volunteer or more readily acquiese to the practice, although I don't expect the saved two dollars is going to woo those suicide bombers who are expecting 72 virgins in heaven.
"Reassuring the public is a legitimate objective," said RAND's terrorism expert. "You might say, dismissively, it's just to make people feel better. But we shouldn't dismiss it."
Wow. Okay. Two big problems with this. Jacob Sullum nicely sums up the first one:
I think we should, and here's why: If any measure that is ostensibly aimed at preventing terrorism is justified, whether or not it actually prevents terrorism, simply because some people believe it will prevent terrorism, we might might as well forget about our constitutional rights and start lining up behind Eve Holbrook. While we're at it, Commissioner Kelly has another suggestion for how we can make things easier for the police. "Ideally," he told the Times, "people wouldn't carry any backpacks or bulky packages on the transit system." But even a bag-free subway would be vulnerable to explosives strapped to terrorists' bodies. So ideally, people wouldn't wear any clothing on the transit system. Compared to those ideas, it may seem a small thing to open your backpack, briefcase, or purse for what will probably be a cursory examination by a bored police officer. And that is precisely the problem: We are getting used to the idea that suspicionless searches of our personal belongings are no big deal.
Already, this has gone beyond just bag searching:
At Sutphin Boulevard-Archer Avenue in Jamaica, Queens, officers were seen asking riders to show a driver's license or other identification and writing down the personal information.
But in addition to the very serious fourth amendment concerns, if the transit cops are mostly busy searching innocent people's bags (many of whom have volunteered!), aren't they going to be less available to notice something actually suspicious happening? And if this makes people feel safer, mightn't they also be less vigilant, and also less concerned about real vulnerabities that we can do something about? It seems to me that we should try to prevent terrorism by doing things that might actually prevent terrorism, and not just by making people like Holbrook, Pabon, and Debrah feel better by giving up our rights one at a time. BTW, flexyourrights.org also has useful advice for resisting warrentless searches of your home or car, and CafePress has lots of nice 4th amendmentgear.
