more on NYC to search transit riders' bags -- but ...

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Lauren Weinstein <lauren () vortex com>
Date: July 22, 2005 9:49:56 AM EDT
To: Charles Pinneo <pinneo () sbcglobal net>
Cc: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>, Lauren Weinstein <lauren () vortex com>
Subject: Re: [IP] NYC to search transit riders' bags -- but ...



How much useful "intelligence" you're going to collect looking in
truly "random" people's bags in the NYC subway system (ever ridden
that system?  I have) is highly, uh, questionable.  Now, if the real
purpose is -- as you seem to imply -- to have an excuse for
warrentless searches for people with certain racial or ethnic
characteristics, and nothing whatever to do with real
point-of-contact safety (in contrast to the stated purpose), then
this is best defined as an attempted end-run around current law.

If the authorities feel that they need to search the bags of people
who look like they might be members of a certain religion, then let's
have them come out and say it, have the appropriate public debate,
and decide as citizens if that is a direction we really want to take
this country.  Enough of treating us like children with fairy stories
of "random" searches on massive transit systems that will somehow
protect us.

--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein
lauren () pfir org or lauren () vortex com or lauren () eepi org
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800
http://www.pfir.org/lauren
Co-Founder, PFIR
  - People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org
Co-Founder, EEPI
  - Electronic Entertainment Policy Initiative - http://www.eepi.org
Moderator, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com
Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
DayThink: http://daythink.vortex.com

 - - -


> Lauren,
>
> Common sense says that random searches are intelligence gathering in
> a cat and mouse game. The more we know about terrorist activities the
> more advantage we have against them. In the second world war the
> Nazis never found out that the allies had the enigma machine. Do you
> think the police are going to tell the public what they are really
> looking for? Hopefully they don't. We're all just guessing what will
> be found and what the outcome will be.
>
> Charlie Pinneo
> pinneo () sbcglobal net
>
> On Jul 21, 2005, at 5:36 PM, David Farber wrote:
>
>
> > Begin forwarded message:
> >
> > From: Lauren Weinstein <lauren () vortex com>
> > Date: July 21, 2005 4:30:23 PM EDT
> > To: dave () farber net
> > Cc: lauren () vortex com
> > Subject: NYC to search transit riders' bags -- but ...
> >
> >
> > Dave,
> >
> > As noted in:
> >
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/21/nyregion/21cnd-security.html?
> > pagewanted=2&hp
> >
> > NYC is about to start "random" bag checks of transit system riders.
> >
> > A number of questions immediately spring to mind.  Will the
> > inspections be truly (pseudo)-"random" in a mathematical sense, or
> > random in terms of "White-skinned all-American looking males are
> > rarely 'randomly' selected"?  What happens if inspectors find
> > contraband or suspicious radical materials during their searches
> > (e.g., printouts of your IP postings from this mailing list?)
> >
> > Authorities say that persons who do not wish to be inspected will be
> > allowed to leave.  Uh, does this mean they can just move onward to
> > some other station where the "random" selection isn't likely to hit
> > them the next time?  Or will they be followed, tracked, and
> > otherwise become a "person of interest" by virtue of refusing a
> > search?
> >
> > And most depressingly, exactly how will this policy prevent
> > suicide bombers (presumably a key demographic) from exploding
> > their payloads in the terminals prior to or during inspections,
> > or bombers in general simply shifting from mass transit to any
> > number of other "soft" targets around the metropolitan area
> > (sidewalks?  stores?  shopping centers?  Times Square?)
> >
> > Of course, this is the same NYC where authorities tried to ban
> > cameras on the transit system -- another brilliant security move.
> >
> > You can't blame authorities for trying.  They are desperately
> > attempting to make people *feel* that they are safer, even when they
> > know that their efforts in the face of such asymmetric threats are a
> > drop in the bucket.  Even London with its vast camera-based
> > surveillance infrastructure, is learning that while such systems may
> > be useful for after-the-fact analysis, they are largely impotent to
> > deter attacks overall.
> >
> > The powers-that-be know all this.  The sooner that they start talking
> > straight to citizens about the realities of these situations and the
> > forces that create people willing to commit such attacks on innocent
> > persons, the sooner we may all be able to work toward genuine
> > solutions that still preserve our basic values.
> >
> > --Lauren--
> > Lauren Weinstein
> > lauren () pfir org or lauren () vortex com or lauren () eepi org
> > Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800
> > http://www.pfir.org/lauren
> > Co-Founder, PFIR
> >   - People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org
> > Co-Founder, EEPI
> >   - Electronic Entertainment Policy Initiative - http://www.eepi.org
> > Moderator, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com
> > Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
> > Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
> > DayThink: http://daythink.vortex.com
> >
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------
> > You are subscribed as pinneo () sbcglobal net
> > To manage your subscription, go to
> >  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
> >
> > Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-
> > people/


-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/