POST CONSTITUTIONAL AMERICA .

WHY NOT RANDOM SEARCHES OF OUR HOMES AS WELL?

GARY IMHOFF, DC WATCH - The District of Columbia government and WMATA
[the subway system] fear that they are falling behind New York City in
the race to appease terrorists by destroying American freedoms ourselves
before the terrorists have a chance to. WMATA, with the encouragement of
the city administration, is seriously considering instituting random
searches of Metro riders. This is certain to be politically popular
because the resultant humiliation and inconvenience of subjecting
citizens to searches by armed police authorities -- without any reason
to suspect those citizens of any crime -- will fool a lot of people into
thinking that they are safer. The less liberty, the less privacy, the
less freedom we have, the greater our safety and security will be,
right? Certainly, the Chinese must think so.

But if random searches of subway riders are a good thing, why should
those searches be limited to subway riders? Wouldn't random searches of
cars on the streets and pedestrians on the sidewalks be even better? And
if that would be better, why shouldn't the police conduct random
searches of our homes and workplaces, without the bothersome necessity
of having to actually suspect us of any wrongdoing? If we're better
protected by having the police inspect whatever we carry with us, why
wouldn't we be even better protected by having the police inspect
whatever we have in our houses and apartments? Why should we be
satisfied with halfway measures?

The answer is that subway searches will do nothing to increase our
security or safety. Security expert Robert Schneier, in a widely
circulated comment on his web site on July 22, pointed out the real
terrorists' response to the subway searches: "Okay guys; here are your
explosives. If one of you gets singled out for a search, just turn
around and leave. And then go back in via another entrance, or take a
taxi to the next subway stop" Only the innocent will be hindered.

Schneier's conclusion: "It's another 'movie plot threat.' It's another
'public relations security system.' It's a waste of money, it
substantially reduces our liberties, and it won't make us any safer."
And for those who ask what we should do if we don't do that, Schneier
has an answer: "Counterterrorism is most effective when it doesn't make
arbitrary assumptions about the terrorists' plans. Stop searching bags
on the subways, and spend the money on 1) intelligence and investigation
-- stopping the terrorists regardless of what their plans are, and 2)
emergency response -- lessening the impact of a terrorist attack,
regardless of what the plans are. Countermeasures that defend against
particular targets, or assume particular tactics, or cause the
terrorists to make insignificant modifications in their plans, or that
surveil the entire population looking for the few terrorists, are
largely not worth it."

http://www.dcwatch.com/themail/2005/05-07-24.htm

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/07/searching_bags.html

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

IS YOUR PRINTER SPYING ON YOU?

ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION - Imagine that every time you printed a
document, it automatically included a secret code that could be used to
identify the printer -- and potentially, the person who used it. Sounds
like something from an episode of "Alias," right?

Unfortunately, the scenario isn't fictional. In an effort to identify
counterfeiters, the US government has succeeded in persuading some color
laser printer manufacturers to encode each page with identifying
information. That means that without your knowledge or consent, an act
you assume is private could become public. A communication tool you're
using in everyday life could become a tool for government surveillance.
And what's worse, there are no laws to prevent abuse.

The ACLU recently issued a report revealing that the FBI has amassed
more than 1,100 pages of documents on the organization since 2001, as
well as documents concerning other non-violent groups, including
Greenpeace and United for Peace and Justice. In the current political
climate, it's not hard to imagine the government using the ability to
determine who may have printed what document for purposes other than
identifying counterfeiters. Your freedom to speak anonymously is in
danger.

Yet there are no laws to stop the Secret Service -- or for that matter,
any other governmental agency or private company -- from using printer
codes to secretly trace the origin of non-currency documents. We're
unaware of any printer manufacturer that has a privacy policy that would
protect you, and no law regulates what people can do with the
information once it's turned over. And that doesn't even reach the issue
of how such a privacy-invasive tool could be developed and implemented
in printers without the public becoming aware of it in the first place.

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/003835.php

______________________________________________________________________________

REAX TO 4TH AMENDMENT SUSPENSION IN NYC UNDERGROUND

NY TIMES - Civil libertarians began expressing their concerns even as
the policy was announced. "We all have an interest in protecting our
safety and security as we ride the trains," said Donna Lieberman, the
executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union. "However,
searches without suspicion of wrongdoing are fundamentally at odds with
our constitutional guarantee of privacy, and placing unfettered
discretion in the hands of the police invites racial, religious and
ethnic profiling."

Lawyers said the new policy is almost certain to be challenged under the
Fourth Amendment, which bars "unreasonable searches and seizures." In
the past, courts have held that when the police search people for a law
enforcement purpose, the amendment requires that there be
"individualized suspicion" to warrant the search.

In 2000, for instance, the United States Supreme Court overturned the
drug conviction of a bus passenger, ruling that a Border Patrol agent's
decision to feel his bag "in an exploratory manner" was a violation of
his privacy. . .

There are few real precedents for the new policy. Boston officials
announced a similarly sweeping plan of random checks just before the
Democratic National Convention last year. A court challenge was filed;
the transit agency conducted onboard searches of all passengers on the
subway running under the convention site, and maintains but has not
enforced a policy of random bag searches.

In New York, the police began randomly searching bags at protests after
the Sept 11. attack. But the New York Civil Liberties Union challenged
the practice, and last summer a federal judge in Manhattan declared it
unconstitutional. In that case, the city argued that the
individualized-suspicion standard did not apply to the searches because
the city was trying to prevent terrorism.

In fact, courts have held that the government can conduct searches
without such suspicions if it can show that its primary purpose is a
special need other than criminal law enforcement, Professor Herman said.


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/22/nyregion/22law.html?

______________________________________________________________________________

BACKGROUND: ACLU LAW SUIT AGAINST FBI

PROJECT ON GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT - An ACLU lawsuit contends that that FBI
possesses thousands of pages in files on civil rights and anti-war
protest groups that contain evidence of politically-motivated
counterterrorism investigations. The organization requested the files in
a December 2004 Freedom of Information Act request that went unanswered.


Keeping politics out of domestic intelligence has historically been a
problem for the FBI. In 1976, the Church Committee reported that the
agency had infiltrated numerous peaceful groups including the NAACP,
NOW, and Students for a Democratic Society. In 1970, the FBI began
investigating every member of SDS, stating that the information would be
necessary if SDS members applied for government jobs.

The response was a higher standard for opening FBI investigations, the
"reasonable suspicion" of criminal activity; however, former US Attorney
General John Ashcroft did away with this guideline in 2002 by
authorizing FBI agents to enter public places (including meetings)
without any level of suspicion.

Combine the history with the fact that a document on protest
coordination for the 2004 Republican National Convention was sent to the
FBI's counterterrorism unit, and it's clear that a better system of
Congressional oversight is necessary. Americans shouldn't have to rely
on lawsuits to guard against unjustified civil liberties violations. But
until then it's partly up to groups like the ACLU to keep the public
informed about their own government.

http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2005/07/without_any_lev.html


||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
FIELD NOTES
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

I DON'T CONSENT TO BE SEARCHED t shirts and bumper stickers

http://www.cafepress.com/dontconsent