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?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Um, I understand you don't like this, but what exactly do you think is unconstitutional about it? As you say, 'people who don't want to be searched are perfectly free to turn around and leave the station'. So how is it different from having your bag searched before boarding a plane?

And that's without even getting in to the question of whether, under the circumstances, a search without consent would be 'reasonable' within the meaning of the 4th amendment; we don't have to reach that question, because you're free to refuse the search and get to wherever you're going without using the subway. (Or, of course, to try again and hope that you don't get picked for a search the second time around. Which is, of course, what terrorists will do, so I agree that it's not the smartest idea or the best use of resources. Then again, I think not letting people fly with their knives and lighters isn't the smartest idea either.)

It's the reasonable part that bothers me. "Hi there! We don't know who you are and we don't care, but we're going to presume that you're doing or carrying something that indicates criminality. Show us your stuff. Now. Or go away. Oh, you use the subway to go to work? Too bad, bitch. You should've opened up for us. You must be some kind of criminal or pervert or terrorist or something and you aren't entitled to use the subway if you aren't willing to have us go through your stuff."

I pay $2 for a train ride- less, actually, since I usually buy monthly passes. It's public transportation. It's a substitute for my car. I shouldn't be turned away from public transportation because I want to maintain some modicum of privacy, unless there's a really good reason for them to suspect that something big and ugly is impending. The curtailment of free speech in the event that it creates a clear and present danger is reasonable; the curtailment of free speech in cases where there might be a danger is not. Same here.

Besides, I have no faith that this is going to make anything any safer. Unless they search everybody, they're going to miss somebody- they miss them on airplanes and they have far fewer people to search. So they're basically conducting a search for no good reason to no good effect.

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.

Among other things, they're reserving the right to search after you've entered the system as well.

If you refuse, can you simply leave the system, and get your $2 back? If so, then I still see no constitutional problem. Even if that dumps you in an undesireable area, so long as that area isn't so undesireable that it puts you in actual danger.

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.

Well the knives makes sense, but the lighters is strictly because some guy tried to set off his shoe.

I don't think the knives makes sense either. I'd rather they passed out steak knives with the headsets, and said "if there's a hijacking, you know what to do".

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.

How about nicotine gum offered on flights?

(no subject)

camwyn - 2005-07-23 21:13 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

zsero.livejournal.com - 2005-07-29 04:49 (UTC) - Expand

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.

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.

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

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.)

Sure, you're welcome to just leave the station, now how are you going to get to work?

Walk, bike, taxi. Essentially, that's your problem. Since when do you have an inherent right to use the subway?

Now assume that you have no access to any of these methods, and without the subway you have no way to get to work at all without consenting to be searched. If you don't consent to be searched, you're screwed. Explain to me exactly how this makes the search unconstitutional. So long as you have a choice in the matter, and can refuse to be searched at the price of leaving the system immediately, I don't see a constitutional problem, even if the search is both unreasonable and warrantless.

Of course, if the search is reasonable then it requires neither consent nor a warrant; or if there's actual evidence that can justify a warrant then it requires neither reasonableness nor consent. Consent, reasonableness, and a warrant issued upon probable cause, are each independent conditions, any one of which justifies a search.

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.

Since when do you have an inherent right to use the subway?

Since I paid for it -- probably twice?

Huh?

Once for the ticket, twice with my taxes.

AIUI, the searches are before you enter the system, so you haven't paid yet. If you are asked to consent to a search after you have entered the system, and you refuse and are accordingly sent out, then I agree you should get your $2 back.

The fact that the MTA is subsidised by the state government does not entitle you to use the subway, any more than it entitles you to enter any other property whose owner receives a subsidy. Entry is always on the terms set by the owner. Otherwise they couldn't charge you that $2, could they?

The bottom line is that you have no legal entitlement to use the subway. The MTA has the right to set any reasonable conditions it likes for the use of its services. One of those conditions is the payment of a fare. And now another is consent to a search of your bags, if asked. If you don't consent, feel free not to use the subway.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only