NY Civil Liberties Files Suit for illegal Searches.

[Clandestino]

I was waiting for this:

ACLU PRESS RELEASE: http://www.nyclu.org/mta_searches_suit_pr_080405.html

In response to the NYPD's unprecedented policy of subjecting millions of New Yorkers to suspicion-less searches, the New York Civil Liberties Union today filed suit in federal court seeking an injunction to halt the policy. The lawsuit filed today argues that the NYPD is violating the Fourth Amendment rights of commuters by adopting and enforcing a policy of searching possessions of those seeking to enter the subway system without any suspicion of wrongdoing. Since the police adopted this policy two weeks ago, officers have searched the purses, handbags, briefcases and backpacks of thousands of people, all without any suspicion of wrongdoing. "This NYPD bag search policy is unprecedented, unlawful and ineffective, said Donna Lieberman, Executive Director of the NYCLU. "It is essential that police be aggressive in maintaining security in public transportation. But our very real concerns about terrorism do not justify the NYPD subjecting millions of innocent people to suspicion-less searches in a way that does not identify any person seeking to engage in terrorist activity and is unlikely to have any meaningful deterrent effect on terrorist activity."

In addition to violating the constitutional rights of millions of subway riders, the NYPD policy appears to be ineffective as a security measure. The NYPD is not conducting searches at most subway entrances at any given time, is giving advance notice about searches at those entrances where searches are being conducted, is allowing people selected for a search to walk away, and is not basing the searches on any suspicious activity of individuals. As common sense would suggest, the NYPD's program is virtually certain neither to catch any person trying to carry explosives into the subway system nor to deter such an effort. Indeed, given the way the Department has implemented its search program, the only people being searched are innocent users of the subway system.

And although the NYPD claims that they are conducting searches that are purely random, the large number of people entering the transit system and the lack of control over that traffic result in people being selected for search in a discretionary and arbitrary manner, which creates the potential for impermissible racial profiling.

"We have no objection to reasonable searches, but we cannot and will not stand by while the police depjartment seeks to expunge the Fourth Amendment from the Constitution with a program that subjects millions of people to suspicion-less searches and that serves virtually no public-safety purpose," said Christopher Dunn, Associate Legal Director of the NYCLU, lead counsel on the case.

Long-established constitutional principles hold that individuals retain the right to move about on our public streets and thoroughfares freely and without police intrusions and that, as a general matter, police officers may not search individuals on our sidewalks and thoroughfares in the absence of individualized suspicion.

The NYCLU lawsuit was filed today in US District Court for the Southern District of New York. Assisting on the case are Arthur Eisenberg, Legal Director of the NYCLU, and staff attorneys Jeff Fogel and Palyn Hung.

[JoeChalupa]

The needs of the many, out weigh the needs of the few or the one.

Spock.

[MannyIsGod]

The needs of the many do not outweigh the rights of the few.

Manny

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

The starters of this thread must read this blog.

http://mexiricanvertwo.blogspot.com/

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Alright, I'll bite.

What's the difference between the subway searches and the random searches at the airport?

[MannyIsGod]

Alright, I'll bite.

What's the difference between the subway searches and the random searches at the airport?
Several things. But one thing they have alike is that they should be discontinued just like the random airport searches.

[Guru of Nothing]

Is there a price to pay for discontinuing the searches? Sadly, yes, and it would probably cost lives.

But I live in Mississippi, so I don't give a shit. No terrorist threats here!

Wait a sec! I have a 4 day business trip to Philly in Sept.

Search everyone!

[MannyIsGod]

Hey, I'm all for searching everyone (barring they are actually legal, this has never been proven). I'm not for ineffective random searches, however.

[Marcus Bryant]

I think the cops should be allowed to shoot people who look funny. That'll work.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Here's the problem Manny...

There's not enough manpower to search everyone, and they can't profile otherwise the dipshits (like the ones filing suit today) will say it's racially motivated.

Fuck, the two biggest allies AQ has in their war against us are our media and the PC bullshit that has taken seige here in America.

[Marcus Bryant]

Well, I'd kinda like the cops to not have the ability to cap anyone they feel like.

[scott]

Well, I'd kinda like the cops to not have the ability to cap anyone they feel like.

Un-American Pussy.

[MannyIsGod]

Here's the problem Manny...

There's not enough manpower to search everyone, and they can't profile otherwise the dipshits (like the ones filing suit today) will say it's racially motivated.

Fuck, the two biggest allies AQ has in their war against us are our media and the PC bullshit that has taken seige here in America.
Actually, those aren't the biggest allies AQ has but part of the group that watches out over civil liberties because people are all too willing to just throw them away without a second thought.

BTW, you fail to miss the point that these random searches are just as ineffective as the airport random searches which were ended.

I'd venture to say the biggest ally AQ has are the people in control who keep putting half assed measures that do nothing to increase our security.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

I agree the half-assed measures don't work, but if they didn't do anything, they'd get reamed if another attack happened. A lot of our security, from these random bag searches, to the metal detectors at airports, are just for the sake of the appearance of doing something.

Go ahead and bash me however you want - we need to embrace the Israeli system of security checks.

They have no metal detectors at their airports. They give every passenger a 20 question interview that is rooted in psychology. The whole idea is at some point in the 20 questions, you will fuck up if your story isn't true.

They start out asking you things like where you're going and who you're visiting, and progress from there. They ask questions that are designed to trip you up if you're lying.

THey've had less airline hijackings in the last 20 years than pretty much any country in the world that has a decent amount of airline traffic.

We should be implementing the same system at the subways and the airports, it would go a whole lot further than random bag searches and metal detectors.

[scott]

I'd venture to say that Israeli security should not be the model of best practice.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Dumbass with a gun on a bus notwithstanding, their airline security would have nailed all the 9/11 hijackers before they could even get on a plane.

Quit being so close-minded. How many terrorists has the US airport security caught? Ever?

One of my classmates my final year at A&M did her thesis on Israeli airport security, they'd caught something like 200 people intending to hijack a plane in the the span of 1998-2003 (1998 was when they implemented their program), and not had a plane hijacked a life lost due to hijacking.

Meanwhile in the same time frame we lost over 3000 people, 4 airplanes, and two of the tallest buildings in the world.

Think I'll go with the Israelis on this one. They live this shit every day.

[scott]

Well, they are doing a stand-up job at the nightclubs and bus stops.


How many terrorists has the US airport security caught? Ever?

...

they'd caught something like 200 people intending to hijack a plane in the the span of 1998-2003 (1998 was when they implemented their program), and not had a plane hijacked a life lost due to hijacking.



How many US planes have been hijacked since 9-11?

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

How many attempts has AQ made?

[scott]

How many have they made in Israel?

Deterence is just as good as, if not better than, catching someone in the act

[JoeChalupa]

I've got no problems with searches.
Hell, they go through our stuff when we go to Fiesta Texas.
If a search is going to get your panties up in a wad then don't travel on the subways or airlines.
If I see searches going on I'm probably less likely to carry my "herbal" supplements on board.

I don't like racial profiling but random searching is okay by me.

And I do believe that the protection of the many out weighs the discomfort of a few. ~~Joe Chalupa

But that's just me.

[Clandestino]

i can't believe anyone would even argue against random searches... it blows my mind... manny must have something to hide...

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

You know, it just occurred to me, I get searched at Best Buy. Anyone got the NYCLU's number? Maybe when they get done with destroying an attempt to make subway travel safer they can come worry about something important like the old man at the door checking my bag.

[MannyIsGod]

i can't believe anyone would even argue against random searches... it blows my mind... manny must have something to hide...
Of course you don't understand. You don't understand anything that goes against what your government says it wants to do, regardless of how useless it is.

Random bag searches don't stop people from doing shit. They are fucking USELESS. But yes, I'm really a terrorist so thats why I'm against them. I have to hide that, you know.

[MannyIsGod]

You know, it just occurred to me, I get searched at Best Buy. Anyone got the NYCLU's number? Maybe when they get done with destroying an attempt to make subway travel safer they can come worry about something important like the old man at the door checking my bag.
I know! I'm so sick of electing my local Best Buy representative only to have them give my Best Buy rights away!

Oh wait, they are a private organization on private property and entrence to them is volantary, correct?

[Clandestino]

Of course you don't understand. You don't understand anything that goes against what your government says it wants to do, regardless of how useless it is.

Random bag searches don't stop people from doing shit. They are fucking USELESS. But yes, I'm really a terrorist so thats why I'm against them. I have to hide that, you know.

Chance of catching one of the London Terrorists bombs WITHOUT random searches: ZERO

Chance of catching one of them with random searches: Better than Zero.

I think anytime you have a chance to save lives, you go with the higher percentage option. Guess not with you. You Liberals love it when innocents die. It gives you more fodder against Bush.

[Clandestino]

I know! I'm so sick of electing my local Best Buy representative only to have them give my Best Buy rights away!

Oh wait, they are a private organization on private property and entrence to them is volantary, correct?

Sounds like restaurants/bars, but they are still regulated.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

I know! I'm so sick of electing my local Best Buy representative only to have them give my Best Buy rights away!

Oh wait, they are a private organization on private property and entrence to them is volantary, correct?

So are you saying if they "privatized" subway security searches would be okay?

Hey, it's public taxpayer money that is paying the cops to search, perhaps they should take a vote of taxpayers on it?


Chance of catching one of the London Terrorists bombs WITHOUT random searches: ZERO

Chance of catching one of them with random searches: Better than Zero.


Bingo.

[Marcus Bryant]

If you empower cops to shoot anyone who looks funny that increases the odds of stopping the 'terrerists' too.

[MannyIsGod]

Chance of catching one of the London Terrorists bombs WITHOUT random searches: ZERO

Chance of catching one of them with random searches: Better than Zero.

I think anytime you have a chance to save lives, you go with the higher percentage option. Guess not with you. You Liberals love it when innocents die. It gives you more fodder against Bush.
Hey, I'll give it to you Clandestino. I will concede that random searches increase the odds of catching a terrorist. By such an insignificant amount that there are far better options. Especially when people are allowed to walk away form the random searches, walk to the next subway station where they are not being carried out and do whatever they intended at that point.

So yes, the chances of catching a terrorist without random searches are not very high. But the chances of a catching a terrorist with random searches are higher by such a small margin it is virtually non-existant.

And while I know it is hard for your brain to bring in the concept of other options, the fact remains that the 2 options you compared are not the only 2 available. It is not a random searches or status quo situation, so your comparision becomes that much more useless. Much like the searches.

But I have a question for all the proponents of the random search:

If it is such an effective policy, why are they no longer using them in airports?

[MannyIsGod]

Sounds like restaurants/bars, but they are still regulated.
Regulated, yes. Forced to enforce the bill of rights, No.

[MannyIsGod]

So are you saying if they "privatized" subway security searches would be okay?
Sure. If Disney wants to search everyone who gets on their monorail at their theme park, they have the right too. Private property, private business.

However, when dealing with a public right of way and a publicly funded mass transist system, the fourth amendment definetly applies.

And this is all ignoring the fact that it is a useless policy.



Hey, it's public taxpayer money that is paying the cops to search, perhaps they should take a vote of taxpayers on it?



Bingo.
Voting can't override the bill of rights either. So, you may want to check your "bingo" card again.

[Spurminator]

Maybe we should discuss the other options. Particularly those that wouldn't cause Civil Liberties groups to throw a fit.

[MannyIsGod]

Maybe we should discuss the other options. Particularly those that wouldn't cause Civil Liberties groups to throw a fit.
Actually, I believe the first test of an option and whether it should or shouldn't be discussed is it's EFFECTIVENESS.

[Spurminator]

Well, we've established that its effectiveness is "more effective than the status quo." Now the job is to find an option that's more effective than that.

I don't like it either, so I'd be interested in exploring alternatives. I just haven't heard any.

[Clandestino]

manny, just has to argue in favor of civil liberties no matter what because jekka makes him. even if it means less safe public transportation. manny, go to jekka's purse and pull your nuts out.

[MannyIsGod]

manny, just has to argue in favor of civil liberties no matter what because jekka makes him. even if it means less safe public transportation. manny, go to jekka's purse and pull your nuts out.
:lol

Right.

Why did they end airline searches again?

[Spurminator]

Anyway, back to my question...

[Clandestino]

:lol

Right.

Why did they end airline searches again?

probably too many lawsuits...

[Clandestino]

what is question spurm?

[Spurminator]

Maybe we should discuss the other options.

I suppose it's not really a question...

[MannyIsGod]

Well, we've established that its effectiveness is "more effective than the status quo." Now the job is to find an option that's more effective than that.

I don't like it either, so I'd be interested in exploring alternatives. I just haven't heard any.



The odds of catching a would-be subway bomber are not very good. New York's subways carry about 4.5 million passengers on the average weekday, according to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. If on any given day there were a single terrorist riding the subway, and half the passengers were carrying some sort of bag, the probability of finding him or her during any particular search using a truly random search pattern would be about one in 2.25 million or about four ten-millionths of one percent. Such odds are only slightly better than winning New York's Mega Millions lottery (about one in 175 million). Even multiplied by thousands of intrusive searches that's a poor bet—and that assumes terrorists are too dim to adapt by, say, strapping bombs to their bodies.

I just want everyone to know where the bar is set.

[Clandestino]

Option 1: Don't allow any Muslims on Public Transportation...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
joke... I have a bro-in-law that is a Muslim.

[MannyIsGod]

probably too many lawsuits...
Or becasue they were ineffective? And even if it was due to lawsuits, then they were illegal.

You're such an idiot. :lol

[Clandestino]

Or becasue they were ineffective? And even if it was due to lawsuits, then they were illegal.

You're such an idiot. :lol

Illegal to put measures in place that would deter terrorists.
:rolleyes

[Spurminator]

First, I question how they came up with those odds.

Second, the purpose of random searches is not simply to catch terrorists. It's to give them some cause for concern before deciding to attack.

If we dump searches completely while we try to come up with a more PC alternative, how do we deter potential terrorists?



Third, what are the alternatives?

[Clandestino]

manny is just anti government... if jekka doesn't believe in it, he can't either...

[Spurminator]

:rolleyes

Back on topic.

[MannyIsGod]

Bruce Schneier is an internationally renowned security technologist and author. Described by The Economist as a "security guru," Schneier is best known as a refreshingly candid and lucid security critic and commentator. When people want to know how security really works, they turn to Schneier.


Searching Bags in Subways

The New York City police will begin randomly searching people's bags on subways, buses, commuter trains, and ferries.

"The police can and should be aggressively investigating anyone they suspect is trying to bring explosives into the subway," said Christopher Dunn, associate legal director at the New York Civil Liberties Union. "However, random police searches of people without any suspicion of wrongdoing are contrary to our most basic constitutional values. This is a very troubling announcement."

If the choice is between random searching and profiling, then random searching is a more effective security countermeasure. But Dunn is correct above when he says that there are some enormous trade-offs in liberty. And I don't think we're getting very much security in return.

Especially considering this:

[Police Commissioner Raymond] Kelly stressed that officers posted at subway entrances would not engage in racial profiling, and that passengers are free to "turn around and leave."

"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."

And I don't think they'll be truly random, either. I think the police doing the searching will profile, because that's what happens.

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.

Final note: I often get comments along the lines of "Stop criticizing stuff; tell us what we should do." My answer is always the same. 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.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/07/searching_bags.html

[MannyIsGod]

manny is just anti government... if jekka doesn't believe in it, he can't either...
And I have big ears. :lol

[MannyIsGod]

Actually, you got one thing right. I am antgovernment. But you're too stupid to realize that most libertarians in here are.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

If it is such an effective policy, why are they no longer using them in airports?

Huh? I've taken about 20 flights in the 4 months, and the airports are still doing random in-depth searches. There's no more airline searches at the gates, but the searches at screening are still going on.

[Clandestino]

racial profiling?!!! it is not like 90% of terrorists aren't muslim males between 18-25! profile away!

[Clandestino]

Actually, you got one thing right. I am antgovernment. But you're too stupid to realize that most libertarians in here are.

if you hate the government why don't you move away bc you won't change it with your little parades and marches...

[MannyIsGod]

Huh? I've taken about 20 flights in the 4 months, and the airports are still doing random in-depth searches. There's no more airline searches at the gates, but the searches at screening are still going on.
They aren't doing random searches anymore. They are searching everyone.

[MannyIsGod]

if you hate the government why don't you move away bc you won't change it with your little parades and marches...
Parades and Marches? Disliking big government does not equal gay.

I would, but the founding fathers already used up the last continent to get away from government. Damn.

[Spurminator]

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.

Aren't we already doing these things? Why is it an either/or proposition?

Either way, it sounds like more of a tax dollars issue than a privacy/civil rights issue. Especially if you are not required to be searched.

[Clandestino]

Parades and Marches? Disliking big government does not equal gay.

I would, but the founding fathers already used up the last continent to get away from government. Damn.

You wouldn't. You are all talk. You will never do anything. Just like the rest of the libs...

[MannyIsGod]

Aren't we already doing these things? Why is it an either/or proposition?

Either way, it sounds like more of a tax dollars issue than a privacy/civil rights issue. Especially if you are not required to be searched.
I think its both. But yes, I think the primary arguement on this is the fact that it is a waste of money.

I think the burden of proof on whether or not to implement a policy should be on those who wnat to implment it to show that it is indeed an effective measure to undertake.

I still don't know how this does shit but waste money and provide false security.

[MannyIsGod]

You wouldn't. You are all talk. You will never do anything. Just like the rest of the libs...

http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smiblabber.gifhttp://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smiblabber.gifhttp://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smiblabber.gif

You're all over the place. You're like a kid with ADD who's running from wall to wall pissing and shitting on himself at the same time. Nice!

[Spurminator]

I think the burden of proof on whether or not to implement a policy should be on those who wnat to implment it to show that it is indeed an effective measure to undertake.

I think so too, unless you have a circumstance where immediate action of some sort is necessary. After the London bombings, I don't think it would have been prudent to sit around and try to find the perfect solution. Hopefully, that's what they're doing now.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Manny,

No they're not searching everyone. Maybe we're not talking about the same thing - I'm talking about having someone step aside for a wand body scan, or opening up their carry-on and inspecting contents.

This random search is still going on, l've taken 22 flights between March 28 and now, and have seen it at a variety of airports (SA, Love, Houston Hobby, Austin, DFW, Atlanta).

[MannyIsGod]

Manny,

No they're not searching everyone. Maybe we're not talking about the same thing - I'm talking about having someone step aside for a wand body scan, or opening up their carry-on and inspecting contents.

This random search is still going on, l've taken 22 flights between March 28 and now, and have seen it at a variety of airports (SA, Love, Houston Hobby, Austin, DFW, Atlanta).
The wand is not a search. I'm going by the court defnition of searches. If they are opening up the bags, that is a search, and I was under (the possibly incorrect) assumption that random bag searches had stopped.

[MannyIsGod]

I think so too, unless you have a circumstance where immediate action of some sort is necessary. After the London bombings, I don't think it would have been prudent to sit around and try to find the perfect solution. Hopefully, that's what they're doing now.
Fair enough, and even so I think a policy of increased police presence without the searches would be much better served. And if you want to do something of a random nature, send officers with random metal detector wands instead.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

If they are opening up the bags, that is a search, and I was under (the possibly incorrect) assumption that random bag searches had stopped.

On that subject, they are still doing searches.

[MannyIsGod]

Interesting, I wonder which ones the TSA stopped then. I'm going to have to find more info.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

They have stopped doing searches at the gates (after 9/11 you could be searched at security only to turn around and be searched at the airline gates).

Luckily I haven't been pegged for a search at the gates, but I usually see a couple of people asked to step aside.

I've had my bags swabbed for explosives a couple of times though.

[Clandestino]

i always get searched, but i don't care... once, when coming back from deployment.. i had my gas mask and other ta-50 shit... they asked to see my military id. i wasn't military, so i didn't have one.. that search took forever.. i had to unpack my whole ta-50 there in the airport! i was expecting it though...oh well...

also, i am hispanic and don't always have the shortest hair...

[sbsquared]

My son recently moved to Alaska - he flew out of San Antonio. He is 24, has some hispanic blood and had a one-way ticket. He was pulled aside and had to unpack both his carry-ons so that they could be completely searched. However, we were expecting it, so we arrived in plenty of time.

[JoeChalupa]

I know! I'm so sick of electing my local Best Buy representative only to have them give my Best Buy rights away!

Oh wait, they are a private organization on private property and entrence to them is volantary, correct?

Isn't riding the subway, or an airline, or a bus, or a taxi all voluntary??

And I beg to differ. Again, if I know there are random searches I'm not going to risk carrying my "herbs" on board. It sure deters me.

[MannyIsGod]

Isn't riding the subway, or an airline, or a bus, or a taxi all voluntary??
Something being voluntary does not mean it is subject to random searches. Walking out your door is voluntary, as is almost every other action.

The subway system- just as the road system - is part of the public right of way. Airlines are not.



And I beg to differ. Again, if I know there are random searches I'm not going to risk carrying my "herbs" on board. It sure deters me. Really? Even when they allow you to leave without being searched only to walk half a block and get on the subway there? OK.

[JoeChalupa]

Most know that I'm a democrat but it is time we JFK democrats took the party back from the left wing radicals. While I'm for civil liberties I'm also for protecting the people. But let's hear some better options as well.

[JoeChalupa]

Something being voluntary does not mean it is subject to random searches. Walking out your door is voluntary, as is almost every other action.

The subway system- just as the road system - is part of the public right of way. Airlines are not.

Really? Even when they allow you to leave without being searched only to walk half a block and get on the subway there? OK.

good points. then they shouldn't allow you get out of line until AFTER you are searched. :smokin

All I know is that I personally have no problems with searches...well, except cavity searches.

[Spurminator]

well, except cavity searches.

Freedom takes sacrifice...

:lol

[SWC Bonfire]

Most know that I'm a democrat but it is time we JFK democrats took the party back from the left wing radicals. While I'm for civil liberties I'm also for protecting the people. But let's hear some better options as well.

Do that, and you'll remind everyone of when Democrats weren't a joke.

Good luck, I sincerely hope that you are sucessful.

[smeagol]

I'm all for airport and subway searches. I live in Manhattan and take the subway to work. I don't care if the cops make me loose 1 to 2 minutes (if it even takes that long) to search my bag.

By the way, have dark hair and black eyes, so I'm bound to be searched. But I don't care.

[smeagol]

Do that, and you'll remind everyone of when Democrats weren't a joke.
'Cause Republicans are not a joke.

Now that's funny :lol

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

ost know that I'm a democrat but it is time we JFK democrats took the party back from the left wing radicals. While I'm for civil liberties I'm also for protecting the people. But let's hear some better options as well.

Good luck with that (I'm serious). That might be the most refreshing comment I've heard out of a demo in years.

[T Park]

Agreed.


I did like how, in response to terrorism , "Quicker medical responses"

Oh yeah, an ambulance digging through debris 20 minutes sooner will make Habib think "oh my, they got here quickly, Im gonna stop now."


Whatever.

If France and Russia would get off their ass and help us in IRAN, and the government would stop worrying about how were treating assholes that want to blow us up in Gitmo, then wed be better off.

[Duff McCartney]

If France and Russia would get off their ass and help us in IRAN, and the government would stop worrying about how were treating assholes that want to blow us up in Gitmo, then wed be better off.

We're Americans T Park...we don't need help from anybody...no god damn Frogs or Commies!!!

Love Live America!!

[MannyIsGod]

"Instead of random searches that are the equivalent of playing the lottery, a more effective approach to subway security would be to have bomb sniffing dogs at subway stations. Any searches as a result of the dogs picking up certain scents would be the result of probable cause and the likelihood of catching a would-be bomber would increase exponentially. Furthermore, the presence of such dogs might actually have a deterrent effect as a terrorist would know that the chances of getting caught would be much greater than random searches.


Well?

[MannyIsGod]

So no one is willing to wonder why NYC is not implementing an obviosly more effective technique?

[Spurminator]

Bomb sniffing dogs would be preferable, but right now they are a rare breed...

According to this Washington Post article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/18/AR2005071801291.html), there are only 100 trained bomb-sniffing dogs nationwide. New York City's subway system has between 400 and 500 stations.

I would hope steps are being taken to train more dogs, because they are widely considered one of the best options for detecting bombs. But it wouldn't seem to be an option at this time.

[JoePublic]

So no one is willing to wonder why NYC is not implementing an obviosly more effective technique?

Simple. The cost.
But then again just put "Benjie" on a leash and he would be a deterrent.

[MannyIsGod]

Simple. The cost.
But then again just put "Benjie" on a leash and he would be a deterrent.
What is the cost of a terrorist attack and would hte cost of bomb sniffing dogs be more?

But you are right, putting Benji in a station would probably deter just as many terrorists as random searches that involve consent.

[MannyIsGod]

Bomb sniffing dogs would be preferable, but right now they are a rare breed...

According to this Washington Post article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/18/AR2005071801291.html), there are only 100 trained bomb-sniffing dogs nationwide. New York City's subway system has between 400 and 500 stations.

I would hope steps are being taken to train more dogs, because they are widely considered one of the best options for detecting bombs. But it wouldn't seem to be an option at this time.
Well, first we have to take a few things into consideration.

1. How many bomb sniffing dogs are in the NYC area and are at their disposal?

I don't know this yet, I'm going to try to find out in a few seconds for google is my friend.

2. How many subway stations are subject to random searches at any given point in time?

I don't know this either, but I know it is going to be a very small percentage, so the entire number of subway stations is irrelevent.

3. When does using dogs become more of a deterent than random searches?

If they can only field one dog at a time, will that one dog be more effective than running these consent needed searches at X number of stations?

[MannyIsGod]

Some more pieces of info:

Dallas reacted to London with bomb sniffing dogs:

http://dallas.bizjournals.com/dallas/stories/2005/07/04/daily26.html?page=2



Dallas Area Rapid Transit (http://www.bizjournals.com/search/bin/search?q=%22Dallas%20Area%20Rapid%20Transit%22&t=dallas) on Thursday added bomb-sniffing canine units as a safety precaution in light of this morning's terrorist attacks on public transportation in London, said Claudia Garibay, spokeswoman for the public transportation agency that serves 13 Dallas-Fort Worth cities, including Dallas.

As a user of the system, did you notice the dogs Spurminator?

Interestingly enough, they are training these dogs here in San Antonio at Lackland.



At a cost of $35,000 to breed a dog, partner it with a law enforcement officer, train the team and deploy the pair in the field, it hasn't been a cheap proposition. There are now more than 350 teams in the nation's 65 largest airports, which handle 90 percent of U.S. air travelers, Viator said. By the end of the year, there should be teams at 82 U.S. airports, Viator said. The program's funding for fiscal 2005 is $17 million. And that's still just talking about airport security.


Under the (reasonable) assumption that every team has a dog, that is already 350 dogs which is much more than the 100 the Post article mentioned.

Also, 17 million in funding for the best method of bomb detection we have is absolutely shit. Why aren't they funding this??!??!?!?!

[Spurminator]

As a user of the system, did you notice the dogs Spurminator?

Interesting. I haven't noticed.

Of course, the officer that ticketed me is the only DART officer I've seen on the rail since the London bombings.

[SWC Bonfire]

Bomb-sniffing dogs are not machines. They need rest, and have to "find" something on a regular basis (they stage fake bombs) so that they don't get discouraged.

It would take an unprecedented amount of dogs, numbers that we are not prepared to supply & train currently. There probably is someone who is quite knowledgeable in this area who posts here, all branches of the millitary's dog training occurs in SA at either Lackland or Randolph I believe, and there are a lot of high-end local breeders of millitary dogs.

[MannyIsGod]

Bomb-sniffing dogs are not machines. They need rest, and have to "find" something on a regular basis (they stage fake bombs) so that they don't get discouraged.

It would take an unprecedented amount of dogs, numbers that we are not prepared to supply & train currently. There probably is someone who is quite knowledgeable in this area who posts here, all branches of the millitary's dog training occurs in SA at either Lackland or Randolph I believe, and there are a lot of high-end local breeders of millitary dogs.
Well, I submit this and I would love for someone to proove me wrong o it.

One bomb sniffing dog would be far more effective than the consentable random searches being used on the NYC subway at this time.

[SWC Bonfire]

Well, I submit this and I would love for someone to proove me wrong o it.

One bomb sniffing dog would be far more effective than the consentable random searches being used on the NYC subway at this time.

You're absolutely right. One dog at each station would probably do the trick.

How many subway stations in NYC? How many dogs would it take to have (1) dog on duty for all hours of operation?

I think I need to go ahead and get me a GSD quickly before they're all gone!

[MannyIsGod]

You're absolutely right. One dog at each station would probably do the trick.

How many subway stations in NYC? How many dogs would it take to have (1) dog on duty for all hours of operation?

I think I need to go ahead and get me a GSD quickly before they're all gone!
I said ONE dog. Not one at each station. ONE dog.

Obviously one at each station would be even better, but I'm guessing that not many terrorists are going to consent to a search. Thats just my stupid line of logic however.

Maybe this line of law enforcement will catch on and in the future they'll ask us if we want speeding tickets, etc etc.

[JoePublic]

I said ONE dog. Not one at each station. ONE dog.

Obviously one at each station would be even better, but I'm guessing that not many terrorists are going to consent to a search. Thats just my stupid line of logic however.

Maybe this line of law enforcement will catch on and in the future they'll ask us if we want speeding tickets, etc etc.

Even a dog wouldn't have sniffed out the boxcutters the 9/11 terrorists used.

[MannyIsGod]

Even a dog wouldn't have sniffed out the boxcutters the 9/11 terrorists used.
Nor would have consentual random searches stopped them.

[JoePublic]

Nor would have consentual random searches stopped them.

Not necessarily. Have you even seen the boxes full of scissors, nail clippers, letter openers and other stuff that is confiscated during "random" searches?

My mother had her small pair of nail scissors confiscated.

[MannyIsGod]

Not necessarily. Have you even seen the boxes full of scissors, nail clippers, letter openers and other stuff that is confiscated during "random" searches?

My mother had her small pair of nail scissors confiscated.
You do realize that the searches being discussed in this thread are consentual? That means you can just walk away and not have to undergo them.

You can walk away, walk a block to where there are no ongoing searches, and enter the subway. Or you can walk away, come back the next day when there are no searches.

So. Damn. Effective.

[Spurminator]

Yeah, but if there's only one dog, you can walk to another station where you KNOW there won't be a dog. With random searches, there's always a chance you could be searched at any station, however minimal.

The problem is in making these searches consentual. I would guess, however, that they keep an eye on anyone who refuses a search. Unofficially, of course.

[MannyIsGod]

Yeah, but if there's only one dog, you can walk to another station where you KNOW there won't be a dog. With random searches, there's always a chance you could be searched at any station, however minimal.

The problem is in making these searches consentual. I would guess, however, that they keep an eye on anyone who refuses a search. Unofficially, of course.
Which then makes the ultimately very illegal. Thats why they are keeping them consentual, but even that is going to have its problems.

A dog has much better chance of identifying a bomber that comes close. I'll admit the odds aren't astromnomical, but they are much better than consentual searches. Also, although I haven't been able to find anything official, I know NYC has more than one dog and probably has more than any other city in the country with the possible exception of DC.

I conceded earlier in this thread that random searches make catching a terrorist more likely, but I rescind that concession because there is no way in hell a terrorists will ever submit to a search. And the searches don't do any good when the bomb is hidden on the body of a bomber.

[JoePublic]

Which then makes the ultimately very illegal. Thats why they are keeping them consentual, but even that is going to have its problems.

A dog has much better chance of identifying a bomber that comes close. I'll admit the odds aren't astromnomical, but they are much better than consentual searches. Also, although I haven't been able to find anything official, I know NYC has more than one dog and probably has more than any other city in the country with the possible exception of DC.

I conceded earlier in this thread that random searches make catching a terrorist more likely, but I rescind that concession because there is no way in hell a terrorists will ever submit to a search. And the searches don't do any good when the bomb is hidden on the body of a bomber.



Huh? That makes no sense. Many are busted for drugs because they have the drugs hidden on their bodies. So I would say that if a bomber has the bomb hidden on their body there is a good chance it will be found.
Now if he has it shoved up his ass then that is a different story.

And if a terrorist is not going to submit to a search then he ain't getting on the plane, thus a terrorist has been STOPPED!!!!!!!

[MannyIsGod]

Huh? That makes no sense. Many are busted for drugs because they have the drugs hidden on their bodies. So I would say that if a bomber has the bomb hidden on their body there is a good chance it will be found.
Now if he has it shoved up his ass then that is a different story.

And if a terrorist is not going to submit to a search then he ain't getting on the plane, thus a terrorist has been STOPPED!!!!!!!
Hey dude, how many planes fly in subway tunnels?

[smeagol]

Not necessarily. Have you even seen the boxes full of scissors, nail clippers, letter openers and other stuff that is confiscated during "random" searches?

My mother had her small pair of nail scissors confiscated.
Those nail clippers and stuff are confiscated because of 9/11. Even if a security guard at an airport saw the boxcutters the terrorists were taking with them on that morning, they proly wouldn't have stopped them.