camwyn | (no subject)

Current Mood: enraged

(no subject)

So.

New York City's gonna do random searches of people's bags if they wanna get on the subway and 'people who don't want to be searched are perfectly free to turn around and leave the station'.

Show of hands- do I start carrying a bag full of mousetraps, or should I start carrying a bag full of some formulation of Play-Doh that feels like dog crap if a cop puts his hand on it? Not that I dislike the members of the NYPD; I'm very fond of cops in general. But since the city doesn't seem to think that the Constitution matters any more (small surprise, since Washington doesn't either)- or that this constitutes a reasonable search and seizure- I'd like to make it plain that if you're going to search me, ever, you are going to have to pay for that privilege.

I'm thinkin' the play-doh. Or a can of non-dairy creamer with a lid that comes off easily- no, then they'd go "ACK ANTHRAX" and I'd be late for work. But you get the idea.

Suggestions?

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

If it depends on consent, it doesn't have to be reasonable. Reasonableness, consent, and a warrant; you only need one to justify a search.

And no, the search doesn't mean "we're going to presume that you're doing or carrying something that indicates criminality", any more than does the security search when getting on a plane, or the customs search when getting off. There's no presumption of guilt; what they're saying is that "we're almost certain you're not carrying anything you shouldn't be, but we can't be 100% sure, and the combined burden on all the innocent people we search is smaller than the harm that will be done if we don't find the one person who is carrying a bomb or something".

In any case, I think the constitutional test of reasonableness depends on the nature of the search, and the general circumstances, rather than any suspicion they may have of you in particular.

And no, you aren't entitled to use the subway. It's private property (well, government property), and the MTA is entitled to exclude anyone whom the law allows it to exclude. That's why it can exclude you if don't consent to pay your $2; and by the same logic it can exclude you if you don't consent to a search of your bag, or any other condition the Powers That Be decide is appropriate to impose. (Except that, as a government entity, they can't be completely arbitrary, or discriminate against particular viewpoints; so they can ban all T-shirts, if they come up with a plausible justification, but they can't ban only T-shirts with particular words printed on them, while allowing shirts that are identical except for not having have those words.)

I agree that it's probably not going to make anyone safer, and is therefore not only a massive inconvenience but also a waste of police resources. But that's the NYPD's and MTA's decision to make, not mine or yours.

I do generally carry a copy of the constitution in my tote bag. Just in case it ever comes up in conversation. I'm not sure quite how it would help, though, since I believe a lot of cops are not very familiar with the constitution, or with the place it occupies in USAn law. So they may well incorrectly believe that a) they are violating the constitution, and b) this doesn't matter, because the order or law under which they are operating somehow overrides the constitution.

Done

http://www.cafepress.com/studiopc

And despite my greedy capitalist instincts, I make no profit here. Not a penny.

If Everyone's armed, then everyone behaves?

Exactly. An armed society, Flight 93, and all that. Guns in a pressurised cabin are a Bad Idea, but knives don't pose that particular problem.

I do wonder just a touch about the permitted items list, but that's mostly because my beloved knitting needles are allowed on a plane. Which may or may not seem like much to most people, but there are a variety called 'circular needles', which are two needles connected at one end of each by a length of strong nylon cord. They're used for knitting in the round, and I can't help but look at them and wonder if they'd be any good for garroting or not.

Let's hope you're never in a position where you have to find out. But if you ever are, let's hope they do work. And that some TSA flunky doesn't decide to ban them.

I really got upset at the latest diktat, that you can't take lighters on board. I don't smoke, and don't own a lighter, but for those who do, what exactly are they supposed to do with them? Unlike actual weapons, you can't put them in checked luggage; lighters have long been banned from checked luggage, for very good reason. Nor can you mail a lighter, again, for very good reason. So what are you to do with it?

I first think of those expensive kinds of collectors' lighters (Zippo is a brand name that comes to mind, though I really know nothing about it), or ones that are family heirlooms. But even with the cheap ones you get at a newsagent, it's still a possession that costs money, and they're forcing you to discard it. And if you're a smoker, then I imagine that after a several-hours-long flight, on which smoking is now banned, you must be desperate for a smoke as soon as you get off the plane. Now you have to first buy a new lighter.

Which leads me to the subject of the ban on smoking on all flights, and how cruel I think this is to smokers. They should have smoking-optional flights, so the addicted have an option, while those of us who'd rather not smell them can choose the no-smoking flights instead.

I'm not much fond of smoking from a purely public health point of view, but I think you're right about the lighters- saying 'you can put it in a preaddressed envelope and mail it to your destination' is a stupid thing and only likely to ruin your lighter. And frankly, smoking bans of any kind- even if they're only for the length of a plane flight- make me uncomfortable for the smokers' sake. Nicotine is a powerful chemical agent, and forcing someone to put it aside in a high stress situation without offering them some kind of alternative or coping strategy is grossly unfair. Whether it's airplanes or merely daily life in a city situation, saying 'the thing which got you through the bad patches is WRONG and BAD and EVIL and you MUSN'T USE IT'- and then not saying what should be done or used to cope instead- places a serious strain on already strained people.

If you're going to take something that important away, there should be some kind of reasonable alternative lined up to take its place. Otherwise, there'll be consequences down the line.

Glitter! And a copy of the Koran.

Thankee. Bought mine just now.

You're welcome

Do not put mousetraps in your bags. :(

My impression was no, but the article I saw that quote in didn't go into further detail, so I'm not sure of that.

Really? I only know a few cops, but none of them seem not to understand the preeminence of the Constitution, although we may differ strongly in its interpretation.

I'll also add my vote to the glitter. Lots of glitter! As well as the "I do not consent to a search" buttons, shirts, so on.

Would you like a Hello Kitty vibrator? I have an extra I'd be happy to forward to you.

Won't be necessary. Although I'll consider it the next time I have to go on a plane trip.

The cord bit on the Addi Turbos looks rather more like steel cable than a simple bit of nylon -- and my trusty #7's have nice, long, similarly steel pointy bits.

A wooden pair of #15's is a handy stake for any Slayer/knitters there might ever have been.

But... really... Addi turbos should be considered a deadly weapon by the idjits who confiscate corkscrews.

-- Lorrie

Simple solution.

The Joggers.

They started walking and biking and carpooling during the subway strike.

If people don't take the subway out of protest, the loss of revenue may very well make them reconsider.

May.

The smoking-optional planes? Once you made it a "smoking-optional" plane, it would never, ever be useful for a "non-smoking" plane ever again.

Febreeze just doesn't get rid of that scent.

Meaning, the companies would need to keep two separate fleets of planes. Just to allow those people (a minority of the population, mind you, and not a minority through culture or genetics, but only through choice) who are addicted to a form of suicide to pollute their lungs (and those of the people around them) while on a plane flight.

I can see why the companies chose a more financially sound option.

How about nicotine gum offered on flights?

I think I could get behind that, yeah.

1. Smoking isn't a culture? From the outside it sure looks like one.

2. The companies didn't choose to go all-no-smoking, they were forced to by the government. At least for domestic flights. For international flights, where the countries at both ends have banned smoking on domestic flights, I'm not sure whether they're allowed to allow smoking, but my guess is not, because if they were allowed to offer smoking flights, I'm sure there'd be enough demand for them, especially on the really long (10hr+) flights.

Then you have the airports that don't have smoking lounges. So someone gets off a flight, has a few hours' layover, and is going on to another long flight. They're going to need a smoke in between, and it seems to me that to get one their only option is to go outside the airport, and then come back through security. If they even can do that - what if they're transiting the country, with no visa to enter? Though, come to think of it, I believe the USA doesn't allow transit without a visa anyway, so at least that issue doesn't apply here. And countries that allow transit without visas probably have smoking lounges in the airport too.

They don't, any more. That is, the TSA took corkscrews off the banned list about 2 years ago. And the corkscrew promptly went back into my going-to-cons bag.

That's in the USA, of course; other countries have their own standards. E.g., 3 years ago the Australian security people were not allowing duck tape onto planes. Really. I had my roll of duck tape taken from me, and put in a plastic bag and thrown in with the checked luggage, to be given back to me on the other end. (Which is better than what TSA does with confiscated items here, of course.)

You may be right. I'm going by anecdotal evidence, and we all know what that's worth.

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

Page 4 of 5