Slashdot Mirror
Unreasonable Searches When Going to Work?
Chico Science asks: "I'm a scientist, not a lawyer, so I'm a little beleaguered by the fact that since 2001-Sep-11, I have been forced to submit to searches on my campus as I enter buildings. I work at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, MD, and have been shouldering the burden of increasingly draconian security measures. Most recently, they've instituted a policy of 100% bag/package searches on entering buildings. Initially it didn't bother me, but after having my bag searched on my way to my car (which was also thoroughly inspected) after work, I decided I'm not comfortable subjecting myself to searches of my personal belongings at every turn. I want to know if I have a right to refuse searches? And why should it be considered acceptable for me to relinquish my Fourth Ammendment rights so I can go work on in my lab?" In this climate of increasing security consciousness, how far can vigilance go before it becomes an invasion of our rights?
You can't ask this on /., you'll never get an answer. You'll get 3,000 "IANAL but.." posts. Talk to an attorney. Then write a followup and post it here. You won't get the answer you seek from /.
Many places do this already. The place you're working for is protecting themselves from some wacko carrying things in and out of work. And actually, more places should do it...it's surprising the number of things that get taken by people when they leave or are pissed off. If you're uncomfortable with it, tell management. If that doesn't do anything, quit.
Well, you could try telecommuting.
Only thing is how to bring the lab with you?
However, since you do work at a public-health-related lab, searches are something to be expected, since your field possibly deals with biological attacks. But getting searched on the way to a car is, well, rediculous. IANAL, but unless it's a government agency you should be able to refuse being searched. Perhaps you and your fellow scientists should organize a strike or something, like they recently did at a TLA, although I'm not sure which one.
This
Check your contract, terms of employment, what have you...when you took the job, you may have agreed to such measures. Given your line of work, don't you feel a little more secure that things are being monitored after all. I do agree that the number and level of searches is a little extreme. however, I also feel that being checked in and out at the entrance is not a horrible thing.
Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
and they have a right to fire you for doing so. You don't have to work there, so the searches can be considered voluntary, or a condition of employment. You're working for the Federal Government, which is definitely a target for attacks these days.
Best Slashdot Co
I'm sure if they caught someone entering your building with a bomb, or exiting the building with 'suspicious' materials - you'd be relieved. Put it in perspective and deal with it.
I doubt it ...
They have the right to ask you to submit to such searches and the right if you declined not to allow you on the property. It's private property, I don't see you have much choice.
This is not the place to ask for legal advice. For a small fee if not for nothing you should be able to retain a lawyer and find out where you stand.
There are lawyers who specialize in this area, with years of experience unlike the masses of Slashdot readers like myself.
I would equate your post to someone asking a lawyer how to make the best apple pie.
Phil
... who is footing the bill for your salary for you to work at a place that could potentially contain VERY dangerous substances, I insist that you submit to such searches.
If you don't like it, work for the private sector.
You might be trying to sneak out some infectious organisms to sell to bad guys.
Given the recent anthrax attacks, and our national War posture, your security hassles are not inconsistent with US 20th Century history. You might look at a good history of the Manhattan Project for a picture of just how draconian security measures can get during wartime in the US. As they say, "you haven't seen anything yet!"
If you're employer was a private entity, I think they could basically do whatever they wanted, as long as they did not discrimnate (the Fourth amendment doesn't apply to private entities)
On the other hand, it sounds like you work for the government, so the Fourth amendment might apply. However, I know that defense contractor employees (Lockheed Martin, etc) are subject to searches by the DOD when they enter or leave the site, and those searches are legal.
I'd say your best bet might be to talk to an attorney, or pay your legal dept. a visit and ask them about it. If the searching is legal, there is almost surely a federal or DOD statute that makes them legit - ask for a copy.
Oh, IANAL of course.
_sig_ is away
To paraphrase a line from the movie Crimson Tide:
"We're here to sell things in a democracy, not to practice it."
Manufacturing plants have always had searches like this. You'd be amazed what walks out of the plant in lunchboxes, etc. What is new is that we white collar workers are starting to be subject to the same rules that blue collar workers have had to put up with for decades.
Fourth amendment rights can be abrogated in certain places. Schools, for one, conduct random drug searches in kids' lockers. I think at places of work, warantless searches can be made on people, as long as it isn't a government agent (FBI, et. al) conducting the search. If your company wants to search you, I believe (I'm not sure here) they have every right to, because the thinking is that if you don't like it, you can always go work somewhere else.
I can maybe see the logic in that, but it doesn't make much sense from the outset.
When nuance becomes the only objective we lose the ability to function
I'd much rather have them annoy you with the searches, than for you to one day tweak out and try to blow up the rest of us. Sure, it might not ever happen, but I'm willing to put you through these minor inconveniences for my safety.
... and we live in the battleground ...
Stop whining!
I work at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, MD,
While I do not agree with all of the searches and invasions of privacy that have begin in the country, you have to keep in mind were you work.
If I worked at the National Institutes of Heath I would expect to be searched due to the threat of a biological attack and all. If I worked at Burger King or something of the like though I would be a bit more tense if they searched me every time, but that is just my 2cents.
man
No manual entry for
And why should it be considered acceptable for me to relinquish my Fourth Ammendment rights so I can go work on in my lab?
I hate it when people do this... The Bill of Rights is a list of limitations on the federal government. When you submit to a search for your employer, you are not forfeiting your fouth amendment rights. That's like saying that you have the right to say whatever you want while in my apartment without fear of repurcussion. While you obviously can't get punished by the federal government (except in some extreme cases), I can certainly kick you out.
Dinivin
Chances are you just have to live with it.
Considering all these factors, you either have the choice of quitting or just living with the inconvience. There is certainly nothing unreasonable about throughly searching someone who works in such a critical environment. While, yes, IANAL, I don't really thing you have any case to object to these searches.
I don't know about anyone else, but I think that after the Sept 11th attacks they're probably stepping up the security for pilot training schools, right? And given that the West is currently in the middle of an anthrax scare, doesn't it make a little sense that medical centres and chemical labs be under a little bit of heightened security?
I think the rationale being applied is this: if the place is a potential conduit for attacks by subterfuge, it's fair game while everything's still on red alert, which we currently are.
Now, ask me this again in five years when the War on Terrorism goes the same route as the War on Drugs or the War on Communism (ie: a nebulous foe that is redefined to justify continuing budgets for miscellaneous useless defense departments), and I'll probably have a different answer...
--------
Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...
Especially if the Uniting and Strengthening America Act of 2001 (S.1510) gets finalized today. Newsforge had a little article written by RMS about it. It's pretty scary, but you can read the link for more information. It will basically:
* Allow for indefinite detention of non-citizens, denying them the chance to defend themselves in court.
* Expand secret searches.
* Grant the FBI broad access to sensitive business records about individuals without having to show evidence of a crime. See http://www.aclu.org/congress/l100801a.html.
* Allow officials to designate domestic groups as terrorist organizations. Membership in such an organization would become a deportable offense; see http://www.aclu.org/congress/l100801d.html.
Things you think are in the Constitution, but are not.
Since you claim to be a scientist, I suppose you're a smart guy. Why would a smart guy like you, ask the /. crowd this question instead of a lawyer?
/. crowd as well) by talking to a lawyer and then report what you find out to /.
It would seem to me that you could do yourself a favor(and the
How much leverage do you have? If you are wroking on an important project, and the company thinks your irreplacable, make a demand that they stop searching property.
OTOH if your only a step above bottle washer, go to a lawyer. If you do have the right to refuse, document every activity you do, save every eMail, and be ready to sue when they fire you on some unrelated matter. I hope you do have the right to refuse, and I hope to hell you do refuse and stand your ground. If you do not have the right to refuse, use your intellegnce to figure out how you can get a law passed that makes it illegal for a company to search personal bags, even if an employee says its ok. Or at the very least, be forced to show probable cause.
I'm the guy that won't let people at the exit of stores search my purchase, and I refuse to stop if some stores alarm system goes off when I happen to be leaving. Personally I am very tired of having to prove my innocense, and I'm not stopping just becuaes soe faulty piece of hardware beeps and whirs at me.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Welcome to the new United States. Unfortunately it is going to be a necessary evil, for how long no one is sure. Of course we'd all like things to go back to normal, on the otherhand, we don't need anymore jumbo passenger jets slamming into huge skyscrapers or masses of people getting infected with "x" disease. People are either going to accept that the terrorists did their job to some extent, others will say that we will rebound better than before. The problem is that a lot of people saw how easy it is to rock the nation a little bit. As far as many government agencies and other places that could be in danger of being on the receiving end of a terrorist act, your rights will continue to be thrown out the window until something is instituted that will both make citizens feel comfortable but not invaded.
But in these times, we all sooner or later need to make a few sacrificies. Wether it be the economy or acts of terror.
I have every belief that things WILL eventually get back to normal.
Just be thankfull you don't work in a post office or a high rise in a major city.
I would think that an NIH scientist would have better sense than to come here and ask a legal question. Oh well, maybe he gets turned on whenever he sees the string "IANAL" or something.
... to what degree do you come near/work with Anthrax? Or other such substances?
sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.
They say the first casualty of war is the truth, the second seems to be personal liberty and freedom. The problem with terrorist war, is that you really don't know for certain who your enemy really is. The net result is that in order to catch the few, you inconvience the many. We have enjoyed a great deal of freedom as a result of being somewhat isolated from the rest of the world. The only threats were fairly well defined and easy to differentiate. The security measures are a reaction to events rather then precaution.
This is not unusual, witness the guarding of schools with the tragic violence experienced in the past. We recognize that the gun toting kids are not the norm, however we figure out who they are by searching everybody.
It is a balance, a pendulum. I am sure when we are not actively fighting a terrorist war things will relax. For now, we inconvience ourselves for perceived safety. As a Canadian, I haven't had to deal with this to any great degree. So, how free do you want to be, at what cost would you have freedom at the expense of safety...
You have an absolute right to refuse those searches, by terminating your employment.
Either you signed a contract, in which case I guarantee you agreed to searches, or your employment is at-will, and every day is a new contract.
Where is it written that this doesn't apply to private property?
You say you work at a lab, with what? If you work with viruses and what not, I hope that they would search you.
Some of this privacy stuff is being taken too far but this is not that extreme. They want to know what is going in and comming out of nih, and I have no problem with that as long as it is within work premisis. If they try and search your house that is a different story.
I suggest that you leave your 12" dildo home or anything else you do not want anyone to see. This is the annoying thing about all this people are bitching about searches at government institutions, but what are they hiding that they do not want others to see.
>Only thing is how to bring the lab with you?
I think that is exactly what they are trying to prevent. When all this is over, will the investigation find that the anthrax spores were stolen from a lab by some scientist with a grudge or for money? With the current crisis, I am willing to forgo some privileges rather than argue every step of the way.
Cave, wreck, and deep diver.
Does that all sound familiar? When you didn't object to being x-rayed and having your bags searched at the airport, or going into city hall to pay a parking ticket, or being searched by the Fry's door nazis...You Asked for this! You allowed your freedom to be taken a little bit at a time for an illusion of security. Why are you complaining now? This is how we lose our rights, a little at a time.
[/rant]
Fight Spammers!
I live near the NIH, and the security being imposed there is particularly extreme. Especially considering that the NIH campus is like a big park, and how open it was before!
But there are other examples in the DC area too. For example, I just went to eat lunch at the Old Post Office in downtown DC and to get into the food court area, you have to go through a metal detector *and* show a photo ID.
I don't know about the legal implications, but the security crackdown is *sure* to drive the food court shops bankrupt - they were struggling already with the lack of tourist traffic.
Your rights at work are whatever the company says they are on the employment agreement you signed when you started there.
I work at a D.O.E. lab and have been subject to the same searches you have. It comes with the territory. It comes with your job. You agreed to it implicitly when you accepted employment. If you don't like it, go work somewhere else.
Do you have to like it? no. Do you have to put up with it? If you want to remain employed, yes.
You do have a choice here. You just don't like the options.
"I have as much authority as the pope, I just
don't have as many people who believe it" - George Carlin
Amendment IV:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
-----
Now, considering the questioner's place of employment, how is "unreasonable" going to be defined?
Should our interpretation of "unreasonable" be modified in light of the attacks of 9/11?
How much "stuff" can/should a person need to carry to/from work that is not strictly work-related?
Talk amongst yourselves . . .
--
Slightly disreputable, albeit gregarious
Not for nothing but, we are kind of at war. In the past that has led to significant rationing and suspension of liberties much more dear than the ability to walk into a government building unimpeded. This one strikes me as a reasonable search.
K
Some posters seem to act as if you need a lawyer to scratch your own ass.
This is unnecessary: All he has to to is talk to his fellow employees- If enough of them agree that the searches are unreasonable them they can have a strike. (or a Work to Win strike if a normal one is too risky)
And even if noone else cares about it- then he should start hunting for a better job- at a place with a no body cavity policy. Once his current employer loses enough scientists, theyll fix their problems.
D00d, mellow out. Seriously.
I would rather be patted down on my way into work then have some lunitic making a bomb or some chemical for some crazy mission sitting next to me.
Yes, I understand that just some Rent-A-Cop rubbing my legs isn't going to stop the determined individual, but it certainly isn't a bad idea.
Yes, I'm sure it's VERY damn annoying (I can't speak from personal experience other than the gown-up procedures involed in going into a bio-medical clean room), but d00d, mellow out.
I'm not a prophet or a stone-age man,
I'm just a mortal with potential of a super man.
In one place I worked, they did random searches of cars. They used to pick on one guy I knew and stopped him pretty regularly.
His solution was to make sure they searched every nook and cranny of his car, and he'd continue to point out every spot they missed and make them look again. They grew tired of that and eased up.
If you make it an undue burden on security to do a thorough job, then a) they'll ease up on the requirements, or b) you complain that they're doing an ineffective job.
Obviously, IANAL.
But, "unreasonable" search and seizure is the target of the 4th amendment.
Consider this:
Airport security is not unreasonable search and seizure.
Metal detectors at football stadiums, White House tours, and concerts are not unreasonable search and seizure.
Checking your receipt against your stuff at Fry's, Best Buy, and Target before you leave is not unreasonable search and seizure. (Even though I hate it.)
When I say "is not", I mean that it legal, therefore constitutional until challenged and defeated. There have been 4th amendment challenges to stores checking receipts and to the airlines. They failed.
Point being - which will be made over and over here undoubtably - it's their building, their service, and your privilege to make use of them. You don't have to be there if you don't want to.
If you don't like it, quit your job or work to change the law.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Now, the founders put the word UNREASONABLE in there for a reason. They could have left that word out, and prevented all searches except by warrant.
In order to protect the public interest of not being killed by terrorists, is this search "unreasonable?"
Also the search is voluntary, not mandatory. Because it is not mandatory for you to go to the building. You are NOT being compelled to go there, you have really good reasons to go there, but it is different than being compelled.
While it is likely that the search would be upheld as reasonable, it may be only useful as prophylactic. IE, the fruits of the search may turn out NOT to be admissable. But that is likely not the point of the search.
The only really interesting thing about your case is the fact that it is a "government" facility and that you are a civilian employee. I suspect you signed some sort of employment contract in which you agreed to certain rules, and relinquished some of your rights.
If you are a contracted employee, then this is only acceptable if there are provisions for it in your contract. If not, your employment is just an agreement with your employer. If they change the terms of the employment, you have every right to seek employment elsewhere.
Of course, you could turn it around on them. Be preemptive. Approach the security guard menacingly and insist on searching him.
For years, especially after the first WTC bombing in 1993, office buildings in NYC implemented search procedures and ID card checks at the door, before you got on the elevators.
Hoax bomb threats were commonplace. I understood and welcomed the security measures.
If I weren't nailed to the penis, I'd be pushing up the daisies!
That aside, I'm guessing you have very little rights in that regard. It's their building, they have the right to control what comes into and out of their building. We sometimes forget that the Bill of Rights often falls apart when we're talking about private organisations dealing with private people... they were designed to protect people from the Government.
The searches out of the building sound frivolous, unless they're afraid you really are going to take dangerous stuff out of there. I'd talk to the head of your department or the dean's office that runs that building.
All I know is that security checkpoints are hardly "unreasonable" and cases right and left have been lost trying to beat them.
A private entity can search you without reason, but not the gov't. The "Choice" to enter also waves the right to privacy. Ex. If you don't want to get searched at the airport you don't have to, Leave the Airport. Only thing to do, call a lawyer, and join the Libertarian Party to fight against crap like this.
http://undeadlinux.com
As some airline employees have said, the added security at airports is a sham, and only serves to reassure the public into a false sense of security.
People would be better off preparing themselves to die instead of worrying about it every minute of their lives.
Duh.
If you are working on, I don't know, maybe cancer research, then the searches are probably not reasonable. If the lab works with highly infectious strains of fatal diseases, then daily searches may be necessary.
If you know that they are going to be doing such searches, then you should minimize what you carry to work. Most of us carry around backpacks full of paper, pens, and 10 dollar calculators even though we have those things in our homes and offices already. Why not try to make security's job a little easier and don't carry things you don't need to?
I've worked in government facilities supporting UNIX/VMS/WIN boxes for over 5 years. I regularly have my ID and bags checked coming and going. It's no big deal. I'm not trying to take anything in or out that I'm not supposed to, and I want them to catch the people who are. The rest of the country is just now catching on to the need for security measures - the world has changed. Get used to it.
Start carrying increasingly bizarre/disgusting items in your bag. Start with an industrial sized box of trojans and K-Y Jelly. Throw some issues of goat porn monthly into the mix. A dead fish might be a good one day gag. If they ever question what the hell you're doing with, say, a tupperware container of dog poo, make up surreal non-sequetor answers designed to confuse. Make it a competition to make the searcher go eww! It could be fun!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
When I worked at Argonne National Labs, there was always a chance that the security officer would ask you to pull over and would check your vehicle/bags either on the way in, or on the way out. This didn't bother me at all given that I was working in an area where I had access to dangerous and hazardous materiels, despite that fact that I had already been cleared to work in the area. Note: this was several years ago and the probability of a search was significantly lower than it is now.
I don't know the specifics of your circumstances, what materials or information you may have access to or work with, but it seems reasonable to me to increase security in public places in a time of heightened risk. Now, increasing searches does not necessarily correlate to an increase in security, but in some circustances, if done correctly, it can help.
The major distinction that I think needs to be made is that you are not going to "your" lab, but that you are going to a (semi) public facility that by its' very nature (National Institute of Health) is a high profile target.
No one is asking to search your belongings before you enter your house...yet. ffoiii
IMHO it's a matter of priorities. What do you value the most, your privacy or your safety?
Searches before you enter and/or leave your workspace can be a nuisance, I agree, but they greatly decrease the risk of another tragedy catching anyone by surprise.
Seeping through your personal files and/or communications... that would be too much of a privacy invasion; asessing if you pose an IMMEDIATE threat to those around you wouldn't.
I am not young enough to know everything. --Sir J.M. Barrie
Were it the police, the constitution would provide protection against such searches. However, you are being searched by your employer, who does not to that extent have to abide by the constituion (IOW, you employer government agency or not, does not have gun power and therefore has less limits.) The choice is yours, you can continue with you current job and leave the status quo, continue and try to change things, or quit. No one is forcing you to stay there (unless you are under contract, in which case another point is brought up and they might be in breach of contract.)
IANAL, but IANAI (I am not a lawyer but I am also not an idiot) most of this is common sense.
Derek Greene
Derek Greene
Move soon, OK?
We're currently under a bio-terror panic that is being fueled, for the most part, by the media. It's understandable that businesses, especially those in medical research and healthcare, are trying to cover their own rear ends. Under these circumstances I think you'd have a hard time proving that the searches are "unreasonable". I think the current body count is possibly three, if the two postal workers they discovered yesterday prove to be the result of anthrax. Dozens have tested positive for exposure, but they are not ill. A handful has tested positive for the disease itself. Yes, it's scary. Yes, it's tragic. No, it's not yet an epidemic, in spite of what the media says.
Anthrax is hard to catch. It's all around us every day, but few actually get ill from it. People who work in the wool industry are exposed to hundred of anthrax spores per hour and may never get ill. It takes a high dose in the right form at one time to actually get sick and it is very treatable with antibiotics. Still, you shouldn't run out and take Cipro as a preventative, or we're likely to end up having Super Anthrax, just like we're now beginning to see Super Tuberculosis. On top of that, it's getting into flu season. With the current panic level in the US and the fact that the first symptoms of Anthrax are similar to those of the flu, do you realize the nightmare physicians are about to face? I'm glad I work off campus and not in the hospital proper. I wouldn't want to be caught up in that fuss.
Everyone, keep your heads screwed on straight. Things aren't likely to really start floating back to something resembling normalcy until after the Super Bowl (think stadium full of people plus airliner, you know the FAA probably has). Maybe not until after bin Laden is either locked up or buried. We'll all be subjected to some major pains in the hindquarters for a while yet. Just keep your eyes and ears open, and be prepared to pitch a bitch if the ruling powers really start stomping on our rights.
Sometimes the only way that you can get :)
severance is through liberated equipment.
When will the American public (especially the /. crowd) realize the rights guarenteed by the government are guarentees regarding government behavior. Any company can do WHATEVER it wants to limit "free speech" or so forth except what is limited by law. This is an extension of freedom, not a limit of it. You, personally, can choose not to abuse private property, etc.
That statement seems a little bold, but it is true. Think about it. Companies routinely censor employees, demand random drug checks, spy on you, and many other things. The difference between your employer and America, is that your employer PAYS you to be there. As long as you agree to it, they will do what they want. If you don't like it, leave. It's harsh, but I once quit a job because they started random drug tests. I've never touched a drug stronger than asprin, but I felt they were going too far. It's not like I was going to get them to change their policies.
The only rights afforded to you at a job came about because someone sued someone else, and the new 'guideline' was the result.
---
"That's Homer Simpson, sir. One of your drones from sector 7G." - Waylan Smithers
Be thankful you still have your free speech and freedom to leave. You've exercised the prior, now I suggest you exercise the latter. You can rest assured that things will get worse before they get better. You can grin and bear it. I would leave. But that's not the answer for everyone. The alternatives will be listed here; contact your society-altering hooks: lawyers and politicans. Start a riot. Get noticed.
So, you mean we can finally deport the CC? Where can we send them? Maybe the vatican will take them in.
Let's deport Operation Rescue back to Mars.
If you worked for a corporation, you would most likely be searched in case you were trying to steal intellectual property. But in this case, you work for a government *at war*, and the sooner you realize that, the better off you'll be. Downtown Washington DC is just a 10 minute drive from NIH, and people are dying from anthrax in DC. You being searched is a small price to pay for the increased security of my loved ones.
Sorry, see, the 4th amendment of the constitution, assures us that we cannot be searched without probable cause. What if our friend here, happens to have some narcotics in his bag, now, that is his right to choose to break this law, however, if he were to be caught at work with a little pot, they would arrest him, and send him to jail. Well of course the evidence would not be admissable in court, because it was obtained without a search warrant, thus violating the 4th amendment. Furthermore, any person caught breaking a law in this way, would be found innocent, because it is a violation of the constitution. We wouldn't be able to jail even a terrorist entering with a bomb, because he would find protection under the 4th amendment, (the trial might go to the supreme court) however, anything found in these searches is completely inadmissable in a court of law. I do like the idea of having fun with the searches though. (stated in an earlier post)
Only if we are allowed to add Congress to this list after this passes.
substances don't kill people ! people kill people
... oops ;-)
Anthrax doesn't
I don't know about America, but in belgium the law on the subject is pretty specific, ONLY a law officer can legally search you without your permission, and if they are not police they have to give back ANYTHING they find immediately, and cannot hold you ( they can NOT hold you till the police get there, not even if you stole from them ). They can only refuse access to their property (and only if they prove they have that authority, if not you can defend your rights, and if they do anything, all you do to them is self defense.
Hint : refuse the search on the way out, and have them call the police EVERY time you walk out, and defend yourself against them if they try anything.
I am not suggesting you kill someone, but if you cause a serious enough incident, it will cause them to rethink their policy ( take 15 of your coworkers, refuse the search, overpower the security agents, and have them arrested for example )
If you work for the government or work for a company that has contractors on government facilities, you are out of luck. When you were hired, one of the documents you signed (if you remember it) gave the government the right to subject you to searches ANYTIME you are at work or coming or going.
IANAL, but I do work for a government contractor and my job is at a military base. My base ID has a little statement on the back that says I have consented to searches and questioning anytime they feel like it. And I had to sign the back of my ID before they'd let me on base.
If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
The other thing to do is minimize what you bring in and out. What are you taking home? A laptop to do work at home? Just leave the work at the office for a few weeks. Use a paper lunchbag and throw it out when you're done. Don't wear cargo pants. And when you talk to your boss, let him/her know that you're taking these steps to make life easier for both you and the security people.
In other words, do what you can to make the intrusion less of an intrusion, and make it know that you do still consider it an intrusion, but are willing to be reasonable, especially in the short term.
You don't like it, quit.
You work in a (target) sensitive (target) government (target) facility (target).
If not for those (prophylaxis) searches (diligence), there's no telling (anthrax) what (ebola) might (plague) get (guns) through (bombs).
So stop your whining. I'm sure you took a low-paying government job because you like the job security and the pension plan, but you also took on a responsibility to the public--which includes you--and a risk in case of war.
You're not contracted to the military, so you have the privilege of leaving your job at your pleasure.
--Blair
Does that mean I'm rolling over and letting "the man" trample on civil liberties? No, it simply means that I recognize the change in climate that has come to my workplace. I don't like it, but the alternative could be much worse.
Most people would be in favor of searching the parsels of NIH employees. I don't know all the stuff that you do at NIH, but I have heard it is similar to the CDC. In these times, a bit of diligence and inconvenience will be worth it. This isn't very popular with much of the /. crowd, but residents of DC (like myself) are glad to see more stringent controls and searches.
-- Solaris Central - http://w
The reason they are still doinf this is probably because they don't perceive anyone objecting. Make a few polite complaints. Talk to other people about how they feel. Encourage them to request less extreme security. I'm sure you're not the only person getting sick of it.
Everything in the U.S. Constitution doesn't directly translate over to the workplace very well. As a paid individual, you are basically forking over your person to a company or agency. They own you for that period of time because they are paying you for it.
You don't have a right to free speech, from searches, to bear arms, etc. Certain other rights, such as being able to practice your own religion, are only specifically granted by Federal labor laws. Sexual harrassment isn't illegal because it's in the constitution, neither is equal opportunity rights. Employees all work within the framework of labor laws, not the Constitution. Once you clock out, and aren't on company time, then you actually have all your "personal" rights again.
So unfortunately, there isn't much you can do, except for extraordinary circumstances such as being racially singled out when being searched. If you don't like it, you either grin and bear it, or resign.
You don't have a *right* to work in your lab, it's something your employer allows you to do, with their own conditions.
Quit if you don't like it, but don't escalate your situation to an *unreasonable search*, that's not what it is.
Most recently, they've instituted a policy of 100% bag/package searches on entering buildings.
I'm more concerned why they're not checking your bags when you exit the buildings!
Truthfully, in the government world (especially in the Intelligence or Defense communities, but I can understand it happening in key health-related establishments like NIH, too), employees are subjected to more stringent security than in most private companies. Mostly, they're restricted to preventing guns going in or information going out.
I wouldn't be surprised if, eventually, the 100% check got reduced to a 50% spot check or something. But the big question still remains -- "how far can vigilance go before it becomes an invasion of our rights?"
I don't have an answer to that. In certain professions, you give up some 4th amendment rights (such as submitting to drug testing if you drive a train), in others, you give up certain rights of association (yes, they still ask you if you belong to the communist party when you get a clearance). I'd say it's a necessary balance between protecting the public (or nation) from risk, and protecting individual rights.
Hopefully, eventually, one will calculate the overall risk to the organization to certain threats. Like, what's the chance of someone bringing in a grenade? What would they have to gain from that action? What's the potential damage? It's a RISK = THREAT * DAMAGE calculation. Then you structure your security program around those calculations, for each risk type.
Eventually, they may determine that the risk associated with not having an in-bound bag check (that is, the sum of all risks that could be averted with such a check) may be at such a level that they can reduce the 100% bag check to a 100% badge check and 10% spot check on bags.
All this is simple risk management theory, though...where, the question was asked, is the line between group and individual rights? I'd suggest that you could perform an "Annoyance" measurement -- multiply frequency of checks by time wasted in line waiting your turn and by embarrasment caused when they find the bottle of, say, viagra in your briefcase, and you get some arbitrary measurement of the "SEARCH COST" against employees. Better to include, also, things like a measure of the chance that employees will get sick of the searches and find a new job, or that productivity will drop due to reduced morale.
The line, then, is when the ANNOYANCE level outweighs the RISK level. Something could be very annoying, like a 100% outbound bag check for departing toxins, but as long as the RISK is very high, it's reasonable. On the other hand, if someone decides to check for explosives in every package within every car upon entry to, say, a desert park where there are no humans for a hundred miles (and, thus, a low risk for harm), then your rights to privacy should win out.
Or something like that. Of course, all the numbers used in such a calculus are totally arbitrary, so it'd also be important to make up-front "value judgements" to calibrate the system against "obvious" cases where a search is good, or where it'd be bad...
You might try skimming FindLaw.com for stuff, I'm sure there's got to be some caselaw or opinions on this. It sort of relates to drug checks, sobriety checkpoints, and workplace monitoring, to some degree.
If you find any very good resources, or get real advice from an attorney, be sure to post a follow-up story...
Perhaps because CDC is located in NIH, and with this crazy bioterrorism frenzy going on about you, security does become a bit overzealous. I myself contract at the *high-profile* target of the Dept of Labor, and am subject to searches as well. One of the costs of living in a capitol city.
I also do some afterhours doorstaff work at a local club, and can understand where the security is coming from. They are not there for your convenience. They are trying to protect you, your coworkers, the (expensive) labs at NIH, and themselves. Unless they're slipping on a latex glove with a dab of lubricant on the index finger, I'd say get used to it.
Some of us have fallen in love with the notion of giving without reserve-Raoul Vanegiem, Revolution of Everyday Life
PS: this was meant to be funny, but I don't think that is really clear.
I submit a story about a US Senator advocating that the US government IGNORE patent rights and that gets rejected - in SPITE of all the stories on the idiots in the US Patent Office.
Yet a story gets posted about a whining guy who works at a government facility with secure areas (regardless if HE works in a secure area), sensitive data, and controlled access.
Mohammud-frelling-Allah. If you don't like the policy, seek your lawyer (DUH), or better yet another job.
Go ahead and mod me down. I'm not a kharma-whore, else I'd post this anonymously.
"Population 1,656"
It's impossible to say (not that it'll stop your typical slashdot reader) what's reasonable because your don't giver us enough information.
What's in your lab? Anthrax? Small pox? Ebolla?
What's in your building?
Why do you bring anything larger than a lunchbox when you know it's going to be searched?
Get back to us at your convenience
"Where's my other sock?" - A. Einstein
or some faithful GW followers will call you unpatriotic.
I work in the Empire State Building.. now the tallest building in New York. Every day I have to walk through metal detectors, empty my pockets of cellphone, PDA and keys, put my bag through an x-ray machine, open my laptop and show security it's a real working laptop.
Like the poster, at first I didn't mind, but after weeks and weeks of this it's become a major hassle. If I want to leave the building for any reason at all I still have to wait in line to be hassled by the security goons. And now they're letting tourists back in to visit the observatory at the top. How long must we endure this daily harrassment? Until we've stopped bombing Afghanistan?
Oh, and my favorite are the posters in the lobby that say 'no knives or cutting instruments of any length are permitted on the premises.' So.... we don't try and hijack the building and fly it to DC?
You could always sprinkle mysterious white powder inside your bag,
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
It is all about tactics. For lack of a better word, 'terrorists' prey upon the every day routines and lack of scrutiny. The only way to combat that tactic is to implement measures that give you multiple chances of finding that one thing out of the ordinary that alerts you to an attack. Searches and checkpoints give security forces that ability. How much time does a search take out of your day? Five minutes, maybe a max of ten? I think that is a small price to pay for increased security to allow you to carry out your important research. Consider the bigger picture and stop whining.
"No Comm, No Bomb"
Take everything you need (clothes, etc) to work, and lock it in your filing cabinet/locker/etc
This will get searched once. (OK, you'll have to move it out of the building once in awhile for laundry, so it'll get searched once per laundry cycle.)
Then show up for work naked every day.
If someone complains, tell them you are just complying fully with the search policy. If they don't like it, they don't have to look at you.
Civil disobedience, baby!
(and I'm only half kidding with this.)
... I don't blame them for searching. The NIH is a nice intellectual target. Just be glad that someone is watching out for you, because I guarentee if you were on one of those plane's you would've been asking yourself "didn't anyone check these guys to see what they had???"
Wake up! You should be *happy* they are doing these searches. They are protecting you.
There is a rule of security I came to realize, however I doubt I am the first to do so. As you increase security of anything, you cause more work and generally make it more of a pain in the ass, for those people who are being kept secure. For example, a home alarm system, you have to rush into your house and type the code to turn the alarm off every time. Firewalls you either block your user's legitimate activities or leave holes open.
Today as you live your life see how many things you do daily that are for security. You lock your car, your house, your windows. If you wanted to be as secure as possible you would spend all day doing security related tasks. Can you think of any security system that doesn't create a hassle for someone?
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
But it seems to me the wording of the 4th amendment prevents illegal search *AND* seizure, not *OR*.
This would imply, to me anyway, that a search in and of itself is legal as long as no seizure of goods took place.
On a similar note, something I've thought about in the past, if I were to urinate in my employers toilet does my urine then become my employer's property and can they legally test it for illegal substances without my consent? Does my disposal of urine on thier property constitute consent? Is it rightly thiers seeing how I just threw it away?
Yes, these kinds of things keep me up at night.
Get yourself a civil rights lawyer or contact the ACLU for advice. Ask questions here about how to setup Apache to handle 5 billion requests a second.
Yeah there's going to be a lot of shit going on. Here's another bizarre story: Novel Security Measures. In my mind I imagine a group of ten terrorists sneaking by with sacks of plastic explosives, while "Security" goes through this guy's Harry Potter book.
I also see the subtext here: Do you look different? Act different? If so, you're going to be suspect. And I don't mean, do you look Middle Eastern, I mean, do you have black hair? Listen to weird music? Read books with pictures of dynamite on them?
You thought Zero-Tolerance bullshit and picking on geeks and gamers was bad.. that's nothing!
But of course, you don't have the God-given right to fly in an airplane, go to work, walk on the street, or leave your house at all, right?
There's nothing that forces you to go to work each day there, nor is there any reason for them to endanger the public, and their employees, by making the assinine assumption that nothing bad will happen there, because they only hire Good People(tm).
Suck it up, deal with it, and forget that afternoon joint you liked to smoke under the lab hoods.
You think the american people are the only ones that gave up our rights a little at a time, the terrorists that attacked took our freedom/rights on sept. 11th. the best one is the people that keep complaining about the excessive searching are the first ones to complain about the fact that most of those terrorists on the 11th didn't even belong in this country at the time. My personal thoughts, this country should be on lock down, we are fighting a war both abroad and at home, which should put us all on military lock down. I, as an american who lives in NYC, feel that I am willing to comply with the american government and any searching party, with reason of course, to any delay or search of my belongings. These attacks might have been done by foreign terrorists, but the last american terrorist attack was done by one of our own, MCVEIGH. Until the smoke clears, the safety is 99% ensured, we should all just put up w/ this and maybe even thank those that are doing such a good job trying to prevent the next terrorist in succeeding. Just my 2cents, you can either take it or toss em, the choice is yours.
what is the definition of a coward? a man who thinks twice about fighting a lion. what is the definition of a braveman?
While I personally don't mind searches and don't bother, I've used this against the time card police, usually with ironic results.
"Love is never saying you're too proud." -Tonic
wiredog said:
You're talking about the Federal Government as if they were a private business. They're not. The U.S. Federal Government is constrained by the U.S. Constitution -- de jure, if no longer de facto post Marbury v. Madison -- and has to follow a tougher set of rules than a company in the private sector.
More to the point, we crazed philosophers who believe in the American ideal of freedom believe in the Constitution as a higher standard to live up to. The Feds are supposed to be the champions of freedom, not a bunch of control freaks cowering in their offices who just can't stand the idea that there might be something scary in that big bad world out there and wishing that darned Consitution wasn't in the way of making things oh so *very* much safer.
Ellen
mods metamodded as "Unfair"
band together to resist these laws. there's power in numbers, join the ACLU
- passion
They're very impressive systems. Check out the pictures. Detects both weapons and drugs. Price is about $120K, and the machine is rather bulky (12' high), but that will come down when the new model comes out.
It's still an invasion of privacy, but it only takes three seconds.
Do not take a bag and it will not be searched.
Leave work at work and leave home stuff at home; you will be amazed how wonderful evenings can be when you stop taking work home.
Slashdot Beta should die a painful death.
I do not like the idea of being personally searched. I don't like the idea of people with 'authority' looking at me with an eyebrow raised when I walk around. I am not a crook. I got nothing to hide. When I read the US constitution and I got the crazy idea my innocence would be assumed, and people wouldn't be out to prove me a bad guy without cause.
Is the cause for searching ME that someone else blew up a building? Is the cause for implying my guilt that someone else found exceptions to that 'thou shalt not kill' rule? People have always found those excpetions, so why impede my liberties and freedom from undue percecution, procecution, and processing?
Yesterday I wanted to cut through an alley as a short cut to the bus stop. A guy dressed like a cop (but not a cop) stopped me and told me I couldn't walk through the alley. What the f^@k? Didn't my taxes buy that darn alley? How dangerous the world has become that a plain old guy walking through an alley instead of on the sidewalk down the street has to be stopped by rent-a-cop!
Anyhow to get to the point, my solution for unreasonable searches is to carry nothing: No coat if I can help it, no backpack, no pocket knife (sorry grandpa), no nada except keys to get in the door where I am headed and bus fare. It does not keep me from being searched (like a common crook), but at least the searches go faster. As long as people feel 'unsafe' I know there will be searches, but the really ironic part is that that the searches make me feel LESS safe!
I am biased towards those with bias against me.
...and I've been subject to search for years. Lately, for understandable reasons, things have gotten ridiculous. Our guards won't even let you go thru the metal detector with your hands in your pockets. What can you do about this rampant over-reaction? I dunno. I'm searching for answers, too. But I do know that there are a few things to keep in mind.
1. 18 USC 930 defines a weapon and what is prohibited from being brought into a federal building. Don't bother reading it. It's being (illegally) ignored these days and has been replaced by the whim of the contract security guard service, the Federal Protective Service (FPS), or whoever guards your front door.
2. Vehicle searches are the same deal as personal searches. As soon as you get on govt property (the parking lot), you're subject to search. Someone like me who frequently has a rifle or two rattling around in the trunk has to remember when they can go into the parking garage and when then need to park across the street. If you don't like having your car searched, find parking somewhere off govt property.
3. Talking to your Union can help, depending on the Union and the attitudes of the FPS execs in your location. In some cases they can get local management to encourage the guards to lighten up. In other cases (such as mine, unfortunately), the FPS execs seem to get a personal thrill out of telling the agency executives to piss off. At the very least, try to get your Union to negotiate with management an agreement that people will not be disciplined for arriving late to work when the searches get really bad. Such an agreement (or at least the willingness of the Union to bring it up) will help management understand that there's a real price in lost productivity to be paid by going along with excessive searches.
Personally, my biggest worries aren't at work but at the hastily erected "security check points" some businesses are putting up. They aren't doing pat-downs, but some are installing metal detectors. I'm not looking forward to the first time I get trapped and have to go thru the magnetometer at some company office or other public place that lacks the state-mandated signage necessary to prohibit carrying a concealed firearm. I'll be perfectly legal to be armed but the guards will go ape-shit, anyway. Sigh.
So I guess the first thing you should do is decide whether or not you like working there and if you would want to take action to continue doing so. If you decide that you want to stay and change the policy, find out which of your co-workers agree with you. At the end of that exercise you'll have a pretty good idea what sort of force you can put behind change (either you have a lot of people who agree with you or you have a choice few who have political power.) Also keep in mind who opposes you.
Then act.
My dad, a retired defense contractor, fixed this problem over 30 years ago. His searches were on the way out of the company, not on the way in. He took his lunch in brown paper bag. He never carried a briefcase. He never took work home and only a few times, that I remember, did he work overtime. During the Gulf War, I worked for the Federal government and we had searches. I learned from my dad and to this day, I do not carry any thing to or from work. Other than a brown paper bag. I have never been searched.
So you're a "scientist" at NIH and don't see the need for "draconian" measures like a mandatory search of your belongings.
1. Go back and read the docs you signed when you went to work there. This is a condition of your employment at the facility.
2. We haven't yet determined the origin of the Anthrax used in New York, DC, and elsewhere. And you wonder why you're being searched at NIH?
3. Perhaps you missed the part where people are DEAD.
The mind-boggling part of this is your reaction. This is not a fourth amendment issue, this is LIFE and DEATH. That's much higher on the priority list.
I think you can go back even further, to soldiers lobbing body parts of leprosy, plague victims, and enemy dead during sieges. Now that goes back a LONG ways.
You're going to work in your lab, eh? Get real. That's no more your lab than me climbing into a Northwest 757 makes it my plane. You agree to their conditions each time you accept their paycheck. If you're not comfortable with those arrangements, then there is probably someone who will be. They don't force you to come to work, do they? If so, that would definitely cross the line. Bottom line: Nobody will come and search your home without a warrant. Once you step outside, you're subject to being photographed, watched, etc. Entering a building you don't own subjects you to searches, etc. Heck, you work for the NIH...I'd be worried if they didn't search you.
The NIH, like it or not, is the US's central asset in fighting biological terrorism. Just like NORAD is central to missile defence/offence.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
You do not have to submit to searches at every turn.
It's easy: Quit. Tell your supervisor, your department head, other important people in the heirarchy, and your congresscritter that you are quitting because of the unreasonableness of the search policy.
Less drastically, tell your boss that if something doesn't change, you'll quit - that you can't be productive and creative if you're constantly being treated as a criminal at work.
There's security, and there's security. Some level of increased security is appropriate under the current circumstances, but the constant searches sound ridiculous. Can't they maintain a "secure perimeter", where they search coming in and going out, but allow people to move freely within?
Already people are criticizing that action wasn't soon enough regarding the post-office outbreaks. How soon before the postal workers who were infected (or not infected, "I suffered trauma.") sue? If there was a major outbreak on this fellow's campus he'd probably be standing in line waiting for the nose swab and discussing how it could've been prevented.
"...and generally behaved in a manner one can only describe as despicable." - February 27 2001, Michael Sims
Everyone has so far said that the searches are reasonable, given the circumstances. Maybe they are, on paper. But out of the following, who would you trust:
1. An educated scientist who has been working for your company for years.
2. Some young security guard on minimum wage recently recruited through an agency to support your improved security.
To increase the level of security you need to increase security staff. But you are at risk of introducing an "undesirable" element - be it criminal or just sadistically minded.
More effective would be a security review of all employees, with background checks (if not already performed). Once done your greatest risks are third party (incl. new staff + security), and the "turning bad" of existing employees. Draconic security measures do not give a satisfactory return on the former, and have a detrimental (morale sapping, hate inducing) effect on the latter.
And, if you don't increase the staff, but increase their workload, then you are skimping on security elsewhere. Even if you are not deliberately reducing security elsewhere, over time "security fatigue" sets in due to overwork.
At the international airport I use, security fatigue set in on the third week after 9/11. Immediately after the bombing security was incredibly high, which continued for two weeks. On the third week security was non-existent: staff were no longer paying attention. My bag went through the scanner, but no-one looked at it, and my associate got through security without a valid ticket (accidentally). By the fourth week the airport had returned to more sustainable levels of security.
He's obviously carrying illegal copyright circumvention devices. I bet his laptop runs that unAmerican Linux thingie!
Call the RIAA!
Yes, this is a troll. Go ahead and mod me down.
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
If you are American, there are not just people who want to kill you, there are people who are still trying to kill you. All of you. As many as possible in the most horrific fashion possible. And there is no means too vile or deplorable to consider.
Perhaps I should put this another way. I am a parent. I have a family. If I can't directly protect my family against the types of weapons that anti-Americans would willingly use , then I expect my government to help with the protection. If one of the ways of coming close to having protection is by searching people who are coming into and going out of government facilities, so be it. If our government can only protect us by exercising more power in the area of surveillance, so be it.
The alternative, of course, is to leave our intelligence forces as emasculated and impotent as they have been for the last 10 years. And we all saw how effective they were on Sept. 11th.
Keep bitching and moaning about your rights being chipped away. But think about the alternatives in a world where someone wants you dead. Wouldn't you want law enforcement to be able to find out who wants you dead so that they can be stopped? For the safety of my family, I know that's what I want.
My sigs always suck.
I think for myself. and then find the best party to represent me (the Libertarian Party). I do not think what they tell me, nor adopt there beliefs to be excepted. I value privacy above all else far beyond the scope of the libertarian party. And I work toward changes in the party. But out of the 3 major party choices, and even the minor parties the Libertarian Party represents me best, thankyou very much. http://liberty-news.org/
http://undeadlinux.com
The short advice to give you is most definately discuss the issue of search when entering buildings with a lawyer. The best group to contact in this case is the ACLU -- they are best equiped to answer these questions and take action if you so desire.
The long of your question is that the NIH is a special case employer since they are the federal government. The Bill of Rights does not apply to private individuals and organizations, but it does (obviously) apply to the federal government and its agents. This precendent was recently verified in the von Bulow(sp) case. Now, government agency operate in a merky space with which the ACLU has a great wealth of experience. They have lititgated a number of cases on this subject.
These types of searches are completely legal at a private company provided that the right was enumerated in a policy document or employment contract. There is not a private company that I have ever encountered that didn't give itself the right search anything and everything they wanted. Think of it this way, if they listen to your phone calls, read your email, and search your desk, they can search your person so long at its on their property. Also, bear in mind, that it is perfectly legal to sign away your Constitutional rights in a relationship through a contract -- a perfect case in point is private elementary and high schools.
I hope that helps. Good luck.
America was never bombed, never invaded, never attacked, so it was pretty easy to give freedom to the citizens. Now your government is facing the fear of an invisible danger that other countries are used to fight from much time, and is losing control over the rights it granted to its citizen.
Instead of setting limits on everyone's freedom, a well trained and prepared government would try -at any cost- to fight terrorism without affecting its tax payers.
Well, Chico Science, do you work with Bacillus spp. or other spore-forming bacteria in your lab?
What is the biohazard level of your lab?
Other labs on your floor?
In your building?
At the campus?
I can't really imagine why they would be worried about security where you work.
"Never bullshit a bullshitter" All That Jazz
During one stage of my life, I sported a shaved head, a weird beard, a gruff attitude, and clothes fit for a biker-zombie movie. (It passed, thank goodness.) I was also traveling in my job a great deal and apparently fit some sort of profile. I was singled out for by-hand searches of my carry-on baggage with some frequency. It was happening on 2 out of 3 flights and I just got sick of it. So I fought back. I only carried one bag, so right on top of my packed clothes, right where it would seem to jump out at you when you opened the bag, I started carrying the biggest, most realistic dildo I could find. The thing was more than a foot long.
I still got searched. But the searches became a slightly different experience. I'll never forget one poor little old lady of a bag checker in Cincinnati who opened the bag, looked in, slammed the lid, and literally ran straight to a little service area behind the checkpoint and started frantically washing her hands in full view of everyone. I actually pitied her. Even those searches that were completed seemed to be much briefer than before. They were into and out of my bags in mere seconds. :-)
This will both ease entry into secure areas, and reassure the vigilant among us that you, as agent of government, aren't carrying, say, surveillance devices in your pockets.
By strange coincidence, "Stand in the place where you work" is intoned by REM on my stereo just as I compose this, confusing the coherence of my reply.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
There *are* concerted efforts to use these type of agents against the public right now. Would you feel comfortable if people *could* walk in and out of NIH unchecked? Sandia National Laboratory?
There are plenty of civil rights issues to worry about in the current climate. Searches by that particular employer are not one of them.
hawk
You work at the National Institutes of Health. Presumably you would have access to biological agents. I for one am GLAD they are searching people leaving bio labs.
A better question is, why haven't they had better security BEFORE?
There are certain things you have to give up to work certain jobs. Working in a Bio Research Lab, you're going to have to deal with people checking your bags going in and going out - at least I hope so. Companies that have bio agents and are NOT doing this kind of thing would be very, very liable for the agents which found their way outside their labs.
My advice for a good form of protest would be to come and leave from work completely naked. Of course then they'd still have to give random body cavity searches.
-sam
burn the computers. go back to the abacus.
That is a bad question to bring to Slashdot. Hopefully you have a friend who is a lawyer. Go ask him or her. Perhaps you could even hire a lawyer to discuss your situation for a bit. If you bring a like-minded coworker, the two of you could split the cost. Let us know what you find. I'm sure many readers are interested in the answer.
Slashdot is not a community of lawyers, and the legal advice you get here is worth what you pay for it.
While I delight in the online communities that I visit-- including the mighty Slashdot --I am amazed at some of the questions people bring to online forums.
Why do people ask random schmoes on the net for legal, medical, or other specialized advice instead of asking lawyers, health care workers, or other specialists? Why do they (not on Slashdot so much) ask questions that can be answered with a search engine in about five seconds?
Slashdot kicks ass, but it isn't everything. Slashdot is a great place to find out about all manner of issues relevant to us as nerds. Would you post a question to Slashdot about how to fix your motorcycle? Or how to get your cat to adapt to its new litter box? Of course not. So why are you asking for legal advice?
As Joebob Briggs says, I'm surprised I have to explain this.
The answer to the question "In this climate of increasing security consciousness, how far can vigilance go before it becomes an invasion of our rights? " is, only so far as to upset a large number of their employees enough that they quit and cannot be replaced by employees who would welcome a more secure environment to work in. People are often told to "vote with their pocketbooks", and I would say that in essence the same advice applies here as well.
There's no problem with KY jelly. Just take some grapes, a coconut, or a frisbee or something too, and tell them (with a straight face) that the KY is for the random item. If they make any suggestion of something sexual, act shocked and threaten to sue.
-- MarkusQ
As a nation, we Americans have a habit of trading saftey and security for freedom and comvenience. We all want to be safe but we complain when we have to go through minor inconveniences like searches. I don't like being searched any more than anyone else, but I really hate feeling like I may be in danger. When you're being searched, try to think about the fact that they might find a bomb on somone else that would have otherwise killed you.
I don't think that this is entirely accurate. I think that there have been a number of supreme course decisions that validate the use of evidence collected by a "third party" (ie. not the police) in trials, even if that evidence was not obtained via a search warrent. Private investigators, insurance investigators, and similar professionals do this type of thing all the time, and private citizens can provide evidence as well. Of course if the non-cop was acting under the direction of the police, then as an "agent" of the police limitations are imposed, but in general if you "joe public" bust down the crack house door and grab up all the evidence without a warrent, it would probably be legitimate.
You work for a government facility, not a civilian company. Filling a, presumably, GS-level position you must accept that you relinquish limited rights, just as military members do. You can always quit.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
Nobody likes to be searched/suspected of wrong doing if there isn't a "good" reason. But as several have pointed out, the person in question works for the NIH. Since nobody seems to know where the Anthrax is coming from, it would seem that searches would be in order. But I also know how if feels from a personal point of view.
A former employer didn't trust any of her employees. She snooped e-mails, web usage, phone calls, computers, and desks of anyone who spoke of quitting or who had given notice. But then she was/is psychotic.
The only thing I can offer is this. During this time of need, deal with it. If you don't like it, quit. It's that simple.
Goran
Carpe Scrotum - The only way to deal with your competition.
This is a dangerous, double-edged argument. Remember, the whole nation is actualy "Government" property. Follow my lead: the nation belongs to its inhabitants, the government represents the inhabitants. So, acording to your argument, the government can do random search at anytime, anywere.
This is not a "corporation" or "job contract" problem. It's a civil rights (and liberties) violation. Expecialy if you did not sign any kind of document authorizing this kind of search.
morcego
"There is more freedom in any moderately deStalinized dictatorship than there is in the American workplace."
-Bob Black, "The Abolition of Work"
Look it up on Google. It's instructive.
Hand me that airplane glue and I'll tell you another story.
You weenie! Complaining about subjecting yourself to some time-consuming searches when we have young men and women risking their lives to keep your butt free and your freedoms intact! Shame on you!
I would say that you could talk to the head of the department there. If he is not behind this, then find out who is and express your concerns (or gripes) about the amount of searches, and find out if it really nessicary. I am sure that you could find other people that are not keen to the searches to join you in filing a complaint.
The current heightened security stance in this country strikes me as being nothing more than a paranoid counter-reaction. Keep in mind that if "terrorists" want to destroy institutions in this country, bypassing this temporary state of paranoia will be easily accomplished. Likewise, the implementation of new "security" policies only contributes to a fearful and frightening atmosphere. If you convince people (through forced searches, and so forth) that there are terrorists all around them and they are no longer safe at work, then this will feed into the fears of the general public. If we want to stop terrorism, it's not going to be accomplished by searching the cars, homes, and lives of our own citizens.
"Quoting famous computer scientists out of context is the root of all evil (or at least most of it) in programming." - K
The point obvious to me along that line is the images produced are as revealing as disrobing in a doctor's office - so IMHO it is a major invasion of privacy - even if it took 30 seconds.
The persons subjected to such scans should be made aware of the clarity of the images, and if not comfortable with strangers/co-workers viewing them, be able to "opt-out", either by declining employment there, or doing business elsewhere.
db
Cig:
ôô
This is the first attack foisted on the US specifically. You're correct in pointing out that biowarfare isn't new, however this is the first time that the US has been hit with it. (In fact, the US has used biological weapons itself in the past - smallpox infected blankets given to various Indian tribes to wipe them out without firing a shot.)
Did you ever think that they're trying to protect US from YOU?
You work at one place where the creation of biological waepons is certainly possible. I realize that the NIH is in the business of trying to prevent and cure diease, but that is one place where the tools (raw materials, expertise and equipment) are available to create and modify the genome of any of the worst scourges on the planet.
Maybe right-minded individuals won't even consider the possibility of doing something like that, but you have to admit that there are a large number of foreign nationals (here legally, I might add) working there. Have all of them been background checked? Is it possible to monitor the actions of all employees all the time when working with infectious agents?
Since only a small amount of biological material is needed as a seed for weapons production, it's obvious that the invasive searches are necessary and right for the public.
As many other posters have said, if you don't like it, quit!
> .. it helps to calm the fears of those who live in his community by demonstrating that the NIH is being extremely cautious
.. an emotion, that has, at best, a tenuous connection with reality. Simply consider that hundres of thousands die every year because of their drunk-driving neighbours, and only a handful have died from anthrax; and yet still people think drunk-driver checks along streets are major inconveniences, while everyone is willing to lay down and subject themsleves to whatever is neccessary in order to stop a few anthrax carrying letter senders.
.. I'd imagine the vast magority wern't even thinking about it very often, for the simple practical reason that fear is a perception, and not a defence against any actual possible event. Just don't forget that superflous vigilence can only add to the fear. True, eventually the fear will subside into routine, but again, it only demonstrates the disconnection of the human mind with the reality of risk and gain.
Um. People feel more scared when security is visibly higher. Any vigilence above and beyond what is neccessary only propogates fear, not a feeling of security. Fear is only a perception
I'm not arguing that these searches in particular are superflous, but your claim that increased security, both visible via your own experience, and to a larger extent, as broadcast by the media, only serves to furthur entrench fear and mistrust in the public psyche at large.
Would you really argue that daily searches of employess, since the first bombing of the WTC up to Sept 10th would have made all the WTC workers feel more secure? Hardly
Anyways, obviously, there is a line. Should we search every kindergarten student? The simple issue is that he and you are at odds over what constitutes reasonable and effictive vigilence, and seeing as he works there and you don't, I'd imagine he has a clearer picture as to the possible or perceived threats against the government. In fact, he may know alot more that you nor I know that backs up his claim of the searches being superfluous.
"Old man yells at systemd"
The problem is that they can't keep it up: searching everybody all the time becomes a serious drain on resources (financial, emotional, and otherwise). So eventually the searches have to be more selective... and how do you think those selections are made? First, the higher-ups will opt themselves out of searches. Oh, they won't write out a memo declaring themselves unsearchable, but security will know who butters their bread and won't choose to search the big guys. Ask any corporate security guard: everybody thinks security shouldn't apply to them, and the higher up the stronger the perception.
Then searches become based on random quirks. That guy acts looks weitrd, that woman's carrying unusually bulky bags. Sometimes the quirks may be valid red flags... I'd be suspicious of unusually bulky bags myself. But many of them will be based on random and unbased imaginings.
Eventually the searches are punishment. They become an overwhelming temptation when the powers-that-be realize that searches are not only demeaning but accusatory: "John gets searched a lot, they must suspect him".
The public has the perception that searches are only used to search for the bad guys. This is a dangerous perception. Left unchecked, searches are used for harrassment, fishing trips, and general amateur spying.
Freedom is our Strength. We need to protect freedom and the strength of America.
Miko O'Sullivan
Hate to say it, but that's the shakes these days. Especially working where you do. Other people have posted it, but you probably agreed to it in your contract, and if you don't like it, then quit or leave the country [as another person wrote]
People love to bitch until a search like that prevents something harmful from happening. Free speech is great, America is great, but don't bitch and complain that people are trying to keep you and us safe.
To summarize: Is it unreasonable to search a 7-Eleven clerk coming and going from his job? Yes. Is it unreasonable to search an NIH employee coming and going? Much tougher call, but I would rather see them err on the side of caution than to let Osama get out with the Super Contageous Ultra Ebola virus.
Good luck using the 4th ammendment here. It won't work, chump. You got 3 choices: 1)Leave 2)stay and put up with it 3)oranize a union and strike. I don't see "whine to slashdot anywhere on the list.
They stab it with their steely knives,
But they just can't kill the beast.
Emphasis is mine. For everyone who keeps saying the Constitution does not apply. I say, the Constitution ALWAYS applies. If it didn't, then what good is it?
-- Will program for bandwidth
Tune: "There Is Power in the Blood" (L. E. JONES)
First published in the 6 March 1913 edition of the Industrial Worker "Little Red Songbook."
Would you have freedom from wage slavery,
Then join in the grand Industrial band;
Would you from mis'ry and hunger be free,
Then come! Do your share, like a man.
CHORUS:
There is pow'r, there is pow'r
In a band of workingmen.
When they stand hand in hand,
That's a pow'r, that's a pow'r
That must rule in every land --
One Industrial Union Grand.
Would you have mansions of gold in the sky,
And live in a shack, way in the back?
Would you have wings up in heaven to fly,
And starve here with rags on your back?
If you've had "nuff" of "the blood of the lamb,"
Then join in the grand Industrial band;
If, for a change, you would have eggs and ham.
Then come! Do your share, like a man.
If you like sluggers to beat off your head,
Then don't organize, all unions despise,
If you want nothing before you are dead,
Shake hands with your boss and look wise.
Come, all ye workers, from every land,
Come join in the grand Industrial band.
Then we our share of this earth shall demand.
Come on! Do your share, like a man.
[from www.fortunecity.com/tinpan/parton/2/power.html, but it's doubtless all over the place]
Just this week someone got fired at my company for a little joke involving some dairy creamer spread on a co-worker's desk. No warning, no stern lecture, no "mark on your permanent record": terminated. Escorted to the door by security, "we'll mail you your personal items".
A company-wide memo went out saying (distilled from the corp-speak and legalease): "We just fired someone for being a smart-ass. Don't be a smart-ass."
This is not the best time to be pushing the boundries of pranksterism.
You work in a federal building, in a very federally-present city. These are times of war, and you are working in a highly sensitive building.
What alarms me more than your feelings of loss of rights is that you weren't always subjected to at least an occasional search.
Welcome to federal employment. Those of us who share your employer accept the responsibility, knowing full well that it comes with the job.
I've spent some time living overseas. In South Africa, your bags were searched, you were patted down and scanned with a metal detector before you could get into your favorite shopping mall. In the mideast, I checked underneath my car for bombs everytime I drove it, and couldn't get into my office before someone armed with automatic weapons popped the hood and trunk, opened all the doors and thoroughly checked everything inside, outside and underneath my car. Was it a pain? Sure. Was it necessary? Sure was. Did it violate my rights? No.
when i was 16 i dimwittedly applied for a job at comp USA, quitting 4 months later. i got the "asshole's" (the guy who looks at your reciept and occasionally any large bags you're taking out of the building. we named him that) job, and people would continually bitch about it. management told me we had legal right to, as there was a (small) sign outside that said we reserved the right to search any and all bags/coats/ect when you leave, and by entering the building, you agreed to that. so i guess it depends if your building has signs or not, too. it might be unconstintutional b/c they initiated this after you started working there, and you/the building wasn't polled about this.
the reason hemos let this one through is that it would (in theroy) generate a hella lot of page hits, as it's in connection to the attackonamerica shiznat, therefore raising revenue. kinda like that vi vs. emacs poll a month or so back.
moox. for a new generation.
I gotta ask, what happened [please be general we don't want you getting in trouble.
I work near RTP, NC; in the late 80's they had more than one employee come to work with guns and kill many people [two (former?) employees, on two seperate ocassions] besides the current anthrax type scare, what could be worse? [I'm wondering] a bomb in a breifcase maybe?
-- www.globaltics.net
Political discussion for a new world
I am continually amazed by /.'ers who don't understand the basic concept that the first ten amendments are a set of limitations on the scope of GOVERNMENT. If I tell you to shut up, it in no way affects your first amendment rights, because I'm not part of the government. If the local paper refuses to print your letter to the editor- tough shit- they don't have to. The first amendment simply says that the government cannot keep the paper from printing your letter, or force them to print it.
Likewise, your place of work may or may not be part of the government. If it is, then you might possibly be in luck. Otherwise, you're most likely screwed. In either case, you need to talk to a lawyer.
The point I wanted to make is this: unless they are somehow employed by the government, a private entity cannot, by definition, infringe on your Constitutional rights. Read the amendments sometime, you might like them.
Its private property and you are working there voluntarily. I don't think you really have any rights in this case.
Not that I agree with what is happening to you, but you have to understand it comes with the job. In your position for such a high profile place it was probably even addressed in your contract somewhere or in the employee handbook.
I encourage you to peacefully protest it, such as file a complaint and encourage other dissatisfied employees to do likewise, but remember that nothing is likely to happen as a result. I'm sure that the extent of the searches will eventually calm down once things are under controlled with our so called, but not declared, war.
Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do.
(1) You work for the government, there are special laws regarding govt activities and security may well be par tof them.
(2) Some wise jurist ocne poinetd out the approximate observation that "During war, the law is suspended." I am afraid that, whetehr you've realized it ro not, you are at Ground Zero. We are beign attacked with disease, the national health infrastructure is thus a very strategic target.
(3) Given that yo uare at ground zero, if Iw ere you I'd be HAPPY about the tightened security. Would you rather have your private self and private posiessiosn blown to private-bits by a bomb someone snuck in?
This is a terrorist war. They don't march up in pretty unfirms and say "okay, pleas esend your amry otu to fight." They hit by stealth wherever they think it will most harm our infrastructure.
is a substantial component of security. Even if the guard may be unable to identify [name of bioweapon], the fact that searches are being conducted will tend to discourage risk-averse opportunists. During the L.A. riots, for example, some of the National Guard units were carrying unloaded M16 rifles. The presence of these troops probably discouraged some looting that would have occurred, even though looters were not actually under the threat of gunfire. Another example is speeding motorists that slow down for the empty police car parked next to the road.
As for the posters that are advocating that you screw with the guards by putting unusual objects/substances in your belongings, please don't. Save those passive-aggressive tactics for telemarketers or for persons who are attempting to search you to protect property rather than life. I submit to you that under the current circumstances (new anthrax cases appearing), plus the fact that your employer is a logical target for attack/infiltration, the searches are reasonable.
I read some American's comments about traveling (especially by plane) in Israel. The police ask questions and watch responses, sometimes checking responses [ie, where do you work, then calling your employer and confirming/description, etc]
It seems the security the original poster is talking about is the dumb "search everyone/everywhere, but don't think to much" type of security. Seems a smart operative could bypass this [mailing things in/out of building for example].
-- www.globaltics.net
Political discussion for a new world
Just as employers have a legal right to monitor and read your email and network traffic, they have the absolutely legal right to search you once you enter their premises, even if in this case the employer is the government. Ditto for using "covert" surveillance within the workspace and so on.
The search in the context and manner as you describe does not infringe on your constitutional rights at all. It is not representative of the "unreasonable search and seizure" protection clause(s).
Now if you're not comfortable with them then your only recourse is really to quit and go somewhere else, though I doubt that would be a very effective statement on your part.
Given the state of the world right now, this inconvenience you and your colleagues are going through is hardly cause for constitutional alarm.
I used to fly around the country on business non-stop for months at a time. I got sick of the "heightened" security searches after TWA800. Fat lot of good those did, look where we are today.
So anyway, in New York I stopped in a store that sold plastic crap made in Taiwan. I bought a ton of it (you know, plastic apples, plastic toys, plastic nick-nacks) and even bought some expanding foam fruit and bunnies. Then I packed my brief case till it was completely overloaded and had to sit on it close it.
Then when the airport search came. They ask to see my carry on bag. I said "you don't want to see my carry on bag." They said, "Sir, if you don't hand me that bag, you're not getting on your plane." So I did. When opened it and plastic toys exploded out in all directions. I said, "Happy now, look at the mess you made." While the security guard was still in shock. I closed my briefcase and walked on through. The other guards just started laughing.
I used to wonder what was so holy about a silent night, now I have a child.
I can only assume that this will become more common in our everyday lives. It's not enjoyable, but it's probably going to be this way for a while. Some companies (biomedical research, atomic research) should have had strigent security before. I don't beleive that people should loose rights that the constitution grants us, however some of these things are for the greater good of every human alive. It's too bad that Russia can't follow suit. I think that the US is probably a last resort for terrorists to try and obtain dangerous materials, but I guess it's a possibility. I don't even want to think about all of the hazardous materials that the Russian's have lost. I think it was just a few months ago that /. ran a story about Microsoft SQL loosing track of Russian plutonium or something like that. Until we have a better handle on what the terrorist currently have at their disposal, this is only going to be more common. At the local Walmart in my town, the State Attorney General, and the Police and Fire Chiefs, made them remove 300,000 rounds of ammo, and several pounds of black powder. As a hunter, this is an inconvience. It doesn't make any sense to me, as New Hampshire is 15 minutes away, and has very lax gun laws. I guess this is just a hysteria that will have to die down.
Um, this is my sig.
I think the fourth admendment only protects against search and seizeure by the government. Your employer is a different matter.
If you resist your employer, they will probably just terminate you (if you are an employee at will).
It is important to remember to ask the right question. Your asking us to tell you how much you should be willing to take. We can't do that. Only you know how much you're willing to take before it becomes less a security factor and more a nuisance.
Just remember, before you go off the deep edge and decide you just can't take all the searching anymore, that security hasn a lot to do with state of mind. You obviously don't seem to be very afraid of attack, even giving the relavent circumstances, however try to give thought to the fact that maybe the guy behind you is scared out of his mind. Maybe it takes all his will power to show up to work in the morning and knowing that each person is checked very carefully as he enters and leaves the building is the only thing that keeps him from going over the edge. Or maybe your privacy is being violated in the name of security and you have a right to complain about overzealous search measures.
Either way, try to remember that a lot of the security measures are taken as much for the mental effect as the actual physical safety which means that it is important to appeal to the man who is the most afraid, not the least.//Morgant
National Institute of Health, not 7-11 right? It would be one thing if the material and information you were handling were non-threatening and your place of "business" didn't provide a nice ripe target but... it DOES! Frankly, if I worked in such a place and they DIDN'T have such searches I'd be unhappy.
We're presently living in a time where folks think it's funny to grind up Life Savers and leave them on desks to see the reaction. We're living in a time when sicko' mislead idiots send postmarked mail purporting to be from 4th Grade Elementary schools with ANTHRAX in it! We're living in a time where perfectly innocent people floating down a river minding their own business are getting buzzed by crop sprayers squirting only God knows what on them. And you're upset because someone is asking to poke through your things?! You're serious?
The place where you work is supposed to be concerned with public health, yes? What better place to spread something nasty to scare the public you're supposed to be worried about? It's quite possible that this has occured to your management and rather than sitting on their hands waiting to see if it occurs to someone else when employees start dropping dead they've chosen to take steps to protect both themselves and YOU. I'm surprised that yu're not just a little bit more appreciative of that fact. While they may be simply trying to cover their butts and protect themselves thay ARE also protecting you and making it that much harder for someone to commit some sicko' act. Perhaps six months ago when a few thousand other folks were still breathing and the idea of a plane crashing into a tall building was a Hollywood fantasy I'd have had some sympathy but right now I'm having a pretty tough time generating much of it. Believe it or not we're all in this together and it's not just about YOU. Bend a little and realize that what you give up in comfort provides a little comfort to your co-workers! I face shotguns and worse coming in the gate, while that would obviously freak you out I am happy that those folks are looking out for myself and my coworkers. I can only hope that they won't be needed!
Don't like it? Then quit and go work someplace that's a less interesting target like 7-11. There you've only got to worry about a gun in your face and a demand for mere money....
Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
We are under siege and tensions are high. Put up with the inconveniences.
Save the fight for real rights abuses, not just inconveniences.
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
Check around for little innocuous signs that probably have been obscured on the bulletin board, or check with your Admin Services Office. Government facilities have *always* had a form of "by entering this facility, you consent to a search of yourself and your effects" policy.
Also, check to see if there are various levels of security awareness for your work facility and be familiar with them. I wouldn't be surprised at the heightened levels at a government site.
Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
The reality is that 4th Amendment protections against "unreasonable search and seizure" apply against the Federal Government - and, via the 14th Amendment which incorporated these protections, against the states.
In addition, it could be argued that in searching those attempting to access a public facility during a state of war (which, don't kid yourselves, is the state in which we currently find ourselves) that the Federal Government is not acting unreasonable, but rather appropriately to meet its obligations to "provide for the common defense and insure the general welfare".
As others have noted, you are free to not be searched. Of course, this will mean terminating your employment with this agency and agreeing not to attempt to access this building. Freedom, doesn't mean the unfettered right to do whatever you want. Choosing to exercise certain rights can mean paying certain costs.
You have to admit, it is the company's right to want to secure the workplace. But rather than be all ticked off about your rights, go half way with them. Take as little to work with you as possible. Suggest to management to install lockers at work, so you won't have to keep bringing stuff in and out.
I hope you find an answer to refuse those searches and still keep your job. I am in the same boat as well. I work for the Red Cross, where I am in charge of maintaining the blood supply for the city of Los Angeles. Again, since sept 11th my work life has been hell with searches. And when an Al-Qaida operative was captured with plans to our building, the searches have been espicially harsh. It takes over 15-30 minutes of my day to go through these searches, I could be catching up on Slashdot, or the Onion during those periods!
... geez the US would grind to a halt) I don't think he's gonna be contacting me. But if he did, I'm sure the security would tighten around here, after the FBI, CIA and the rest of the world stops laughing.
Well I could continue on, but hey, you work for the national Institute of Health in Bethesda MA, which currently has quite a bit of anthrax going on. You are probably getting quite a few samples from the Congress, embassy's and such being in that are area. I suspect the searches will only intensify. Why? Becasue you are at a target. If I wanted to shock the world, what if I smuggled in some Ebola and contaminated a few senator's samples with it?
If we are going to comment about 'unreasonable' searches, I want to talk about the guy at PetsMart getting searched because his paranoid manager fears Al-Quida antraxing petfood etc etc. The 'I work at Pantex (they build the Hbomb warheads) and have to put up with cavety searches on the way in AND out', doesn't get much sympathy. Even if all your doing is maintaining the email. All jobs have pros and cons, one of the cons about jobs that affect everyone in general is that when there is a WAR your personal freedoms get a little squashed. This, i don't believe, in epedemic, yet. I work on some government projects myself, mainly ecommerce, and there has been NO change in my freedoms. Why? Because until Osama's plan is to make every car pass emission controls, (or maybe not pass
In summary, either start to lube up in the morning 'AFTER' the shower and learn to enjoy it, or find another job. The war will be over before you know it. We just have to wait for the new OJ roadrage trial to start.
BTW--- THE FIRST PARAGRAPH IS A JOKE. I DO NOT KNOW OF ANY PLANS FOR THE RED CROSS, I MADE IT UP.
you could have a little innocent fun with this...suggested items for purse/briefcase
1) sex toys
2) dozens of loose ping-pong balls
3) dirty laundry
4) barbie dolls
5) Ken Dolls, dressed in Barbie's cloths
6) one big peice of cheese
7) more sex toys
8) condoms, hundreds of them
9) *dirty* comics
10) dozens of those stupid "moo like a cow" toys
11) tooth paste, sans tooth paste tube
-- www.globaltics.net
Political discussion for a new world
Many federal "rights" do not apply in the employer-employee relationship.
Shocking, but it has been that way for eons.
Laws about unreasonable search and seizures do not apply in the context of being employed by and in the normal operations of government on their own facilities. OTOH if they demanded to search your home they'd need a warrant (one would hope, more or less as it relates to criminal investigation). If they stopped your car off premises they'd need a search warrant or a criminal complaint or arrest warrant. But while you are on site they own your ass and there is nothing you can do about it.
One simple solution is simply to treat the time you spend on the searches as part of your employment time. If you are required to work from 9 to 5, and you spend 30 minutes being searched on your way to your car, start leaving at 4:30.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
I believe Mark Hammil said in Wing Commander 4, The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. He then got into a knife fight in a space bar as i recall.
Of course, they could just eliminate the checking altogether to protect your "rights." But then that $250 will become about $300 because they'll have to raise their prices to cover the increase in undetected shoplifting. What's that you say? So let them do less invasive security? You mean like hidden cameras watching your every move, as most department stores have?
But then, maybe you're willing to pay the extra cash to subsidize theft in order to avoid the trauma of having your receipt checked. Trouble is, most people aren't that well heeled. They'll opt for the competition -- the one that still has receipt checking and consequently lower prices, and your no-recipt-checking store won't be around for long. Retail is a low-margin business.
"Tough," you say, "if their prices go up I'll just shop somewhere else." But of course, that somewhere else faces the same problems as Fry's. (Actually, is there anyplace else like Fry's?)
So, you see, all the alternatives are as bad or worse. I suggest an alternate plan. Next time, hand your receipt to the checker and say, "How 'bout those Giants?" (Okay, 'Niners.) Have a conversation with him. Discover that he's a human being, too. In short, stop acting like such an insufferable prig.
is the number of ./ers that were psycho-militant about freedom a few weeks ago, and who are now talking about "reasonable" searches. Either you believe in the liberty afforded by the United States Constitution or you should leave and go to another country like England. Their airports feel free to strip search you, and yet they still have quite a terrorist problem. Laws will not fix this problem. Not electing frat boys who allowed arms to be sold to foreign nations that overthrew legitimate governments and then started sponsoring terrorists might.
Look we live in a free society as long as it doesn't interfere with someone else's freedom. So as long as there are nuts running around blowing things up and hurting people, you will have to accept searches as being an everyday part of life.
Why because the rest of us have the basic right to live and if we did not search people who have access to high level goverment buildings we would be endangering lives needlessly.
Sincerely
Cubicle
To err is to be human, to really screw up takes a computer and a human.
Gelfling nailed it, more or less. Although the Constitution applies to all things, the Supreme Court has found that, in a situation as described above, a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy to deny a search and seizure. The phrase "reasonable expectation of privacy" is key, to any 4th Amendment analysis. Like it or not, it has been determined that a person at the work place has no reasonable expectation of privacy b/c he/she performs within an observable environment. That is why a company is completely entitled to see your computer activity, internet activity, check phone numbers called, etc. Examples of situations discussed by the Supreme Court: 1) U.S. v. Katz (a pivotal 4th Amendment case): person within a phone booth making a phone call was found to have a reasonable expectation of privacy and, hence, a wiretap on that phone to relay the content of his call was deemed unconstitutional. 2) Planting a location tracking "beeper" in a car without a person's knowing: deemed Constitutional, as a person driving a car is driving in "public" places, and therefore has no reasonable expectation of privacy. 3) "Pen registers" (the tracking of phone numbers (and with the right warrant, content of those calls) dialled, by getting a register of all calls from the phone company): deemed Constitutional, due to the fact that a person dials OUT and submits information to privately owned companies and mediums of communication (ie the lines). 4) Thermal imaging of houses: Deemed unconstitutional without a search warrant, as it detects details of the goings on inside a house, without actually being inside the house to see. Kyllo v. US (decided this summer) raises the possibility that only technology that is not reasonably accessible by the general public would be limited to such an analysis. Remember,the focus is on "reasonable expectation of privacy." The question to ask is: "Should you believe that what you do in the workplace is privately known only to yourself?" The answer to that question, says the Supreme Court, is no. Sorry, but those searches are legitimate and legal. You can deny the search, but to do so, you won't have a legal leg to stand on - ESPECIALLY in light of heightened national security concerns from 9/11, coupled with you working at NIH (or any gov't entity, for that matter). And yes, I am a lawyer.
I'm happy about the 100% bag searches. Especially when working for a government agency. I'm glad to see security is not just concerned with what you could be sneaking into these buildings, but also about what folks could be sneaking out with, that is equally important.
Is it that unreasonable of your employers to make sure your not theiving sensitive information, or even worse dangerous substances?
Fuckin' A, man.
Your civil liberties are going the way of the dinosaur. That's what is shaking out from the 9/11 events and the ongoing Anthrax episodes. As a CEO recently said about privicy, "Get over it." You can count on more of this cavity search mentality because law enforcement basically has a blank check to do as they please.
But are they going to check out people entering the US more thoroughly? Are they going to scrutinize the immigration non-policy we have today? Are we going to continue to subsidize big business's insatiable appetite for cheap labor by increasing the already excessive H1-B quota? So far, I've heard little discussion of it.
If native Americans are to lose civil liberties then it's only fair that the immigrants who aspire to citizenship bear some of the burden too.
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
Contract Anthrax, make sure it is the skin variant as this has the greatest visual impact.
Enlist in the Army/Navy/Air Force/Marines, this will cut down on the number of times they search you as you will not be working there anymore.
Die in a terrorist attack, I doubt they will dig you up to search you.
"And why should it be considered acceptable for me to relinquish my Fourth Ammendment rights so I can go work on in my lab?"
If it was "your lab" then you would have a point, but it isn't. Good grief, you work at N.I.H. in Bethesda, MD; you should be upset if they DIDN'T search you!
If it really bothers you, then quit and start your own lab, then you can take whatever stupid risks you want.
As for some of the "have fun with it" suggestions for putting gross things in your briefcase; I would be careful about that. I'm sure most of these people have never worked in a secure facility and have no idea how little of a sense of humor a good security force is supposed to have. If you still want to "make it fun" that is fine, just be careful how you do it. Putting that creative mind to some positive use and doing a little "cross functional teaming" with the security manager could make it more tolerable and also improve security. For example, get together with some of the folks you work with, and the supervisor of the security guards and suggest ongoing "tests" of the searchers. A good security force needs to be audited at irregular intervals anyway; and if the supervisor has the co-operation of some non-security employees, that can make it easier. What I recommend for audits is to use dice. If I need to audit a dept. about once a week, I roll a 10 sided dice (you do have some of those left over from D&D, don't you) and if it comes up 9 or 10, then I do an audit that day. That way, the audits occur about the right frequency but are not predictable. The supervisor could even add a carrot along with the stick and offer some small prize (a "quality" pen or a gift certificate for a box of donuts) to whoever finds the employee trying to smuggle the test item through. Of course, there would have to be more employees in on the audits than just you, or else they would soon figure out to just search you thoroughly, and the whole point is lost.
I currently have a part time job as a ramp agent at an airport in a metro area. I'm on the airfield, driving, working with planes, etc.
On the way into work, they use a handheld wand metal detector on us. We're not allowed to bring any sort of cutting instruments onto the airfield (this is assinine... I can walk up and touch the airplane engines but I can't have a mini leatherman). They also search all bags/backpacks/lunchboxes. It's a pain in the arse but probably a good move in light of recent events.
What makes it all hilarious, but not really, is that we get an even more extensive search on the way out to make sure that we're not stealing anything... you can sure tell where the priorities of the company lie.
Arguably, spreading a white powder on a co-worker's desk in these times is pretty serious - and a STUPID prank. The hazmat could be called in, you could have all been quarantined etc. I assume the person fessed up, and that's how this was all averted, right?
Now, carrying a foot-long ass-widener of a dildo in your bags, that is a little harder to characterize as anything other than funny (it was one of those ones with the balls molded onto the base, wasn't it, you pervert!). There's probably no rule at ANY airline, company or gov't agency saying you can't carry a rubber phallus in your briefcase, after all. You could go a step farther and wrap the thing in a copy of the US Constitution, if you wanted to really drive the point home (so to speak, heh).
Freedom: "I won't!"
"those who would trade freedom for security deserve and shall have neither."
You hit it on the head. If you're going to search, search. But don't insult my intelligence and endanger us all by just going through the motions.
CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.
Before you question the searches, make sure you are prepared to answer a simple question. Why do you really need to take your personal items into work. If your employer has real security concerns, then they should be allowd to be able to make reasonable searches. If you're not comfortable with being searched, then you might need to find different employment. In the United States you have a right to be protected from unreasonable searches. This ins't a case where the government or your employer wants to search your home, or spot check you as you are walking down the street in public. You have the option of not working there. You even have an option of not bringing those personal items with you to work.
My former employer had contracts with the defense department. My employment contract mentioned nothing about agreeing to searches. However, near every main entrance, there was a sign warning that all bags were subject to search. I recall that there was a reference to a federal code at the bottom of the sign. So,(and IANAL) I believe it is federal law in some cases and you may not have any choice in the matter. Your car may be a different story.
_damnit_
It's my job to freeze you. -- Logan's Run
If they were arresting people for protesting the war or writing critiques of our government, or firing people who "looked" like a terrorist, or prohibited people of certain faiths from flying, ... these would be violations of freedoms and rights.
Having your backpack searched -- and not for anything but for weapons, etc. -- is an inconvenience.
These are called REASONABLE searches. Perhaps not before September 11, but definitely afterwards.
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
You're working at the National Institutes of Health and you don't want there to be bag searches? Can you think of a terrorist wouldn't want to attack there? Do the reports that the capitol is filled with Anthrax not bother you? Let me ask you something: you are working in a high profile government lab dealing with health issues, and you don't want to be hassled with having your bag searched? Sure, fourth amendment and all that, but can you honestly say you would rather trade your bag searches for the possible threat of Anthrax or whatever else the terrorists decide to use next? I know this sounds like trolling, but you have to realize that there is the very real threat of your life being at stake. Who would have thought that software comapnies would have been targeted, but they were! Put your pride aside now, so you can live knowing that nobody is walking in with Anthrax to your very tempting lab.
after having my bag searched on my way to my car (which was also thoroughly inspected) after work, I decided I'm not comfortable subjecting myself to searches of my personal belongings at every turn. I want to know if I have a right to refuse searches?
Of course you have; you shouldn't need a lawyer to tell you that. The owner of a building can refuse to admit you if you refuse to be searched before entering it. But by allowing yourself to be searched on the way to your car, you're giving up your own rights and helping to diminish everyone else's.
Rights are not something that are handed out for free. If you want them, you have to defend them. This will cause you trouble and inconvenience. Read about how the signatories of the Declaration of Independence fared.
Just one question..... What the hell is the point ?
That which does not kill me only postpones the inevitable.
if you happen to live (or visit) Israel for example, or for that matter, any other country outside your little north american realm, you will be bound to realize that searches are a common thing.
it is "normal" to be searched, whether or not you work in the university, a hospital or even entering a supermarket. it might not be pleasant, but it does not make it unreasonable or any less normal.
i am more worried about the cornea scans and the fingerprinting - that stuff already tresspasses into my own realm of privacy and maintaining anonimity. having to put my fingerprints on record so i can fly on a plane is bloody ridiculous. that, my firend, is not normal.
...is that so many people jump up and claim "hey, the Bill of Rights only applies to the feds; your employer can do whatever they like to you." No doubt an urban legend in law as it seems to be widespread and generally accepted.
It also isn't true. The Fourth Amendment, for those who can't be bothered to read the Constitution or the attendant papers written by the people who actually crafted it:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Please note that nowhere does it say "but this only applies to the feds" or "corporations are exempt". In NONE of the papers written on the Constitution by the Founders does it specifically separate rights based upon who violates them, e.g., bad for government but okay for business. In fact, the it *never even occurred* to the people who wrote the Constitution that anyone would make such a distinction.
You see, the Constitution is the highest law of the land; these rights apply AT ALL TIMES. Or they did until our government started arguing for exemptions (e.g., mandatory drug testing).
Our government and courts might exempt certain entities from the provisions of the 4th Amendment; the 4th itself does no such thing nor was it supposed to be open to exemptions of any kind. The guys who wrote the thing specifically claimed that these rights couldn't be abridged, not by the government or anyone else. The fact that they are makes the exemptions ILLEGAL until such a time as the Constitution is amended to eliminate or change the 4th Amendment.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
Do you really want the security guard to see your huge hardon every day as you get scanned, because you have a thing for women with handcuffs?
Maybe you're homophobic, and the guard is looking a little too closely at your scans...
Really, that's TOO invasive for my tastes, no matter HOW you look at it.
You wanna know the detail is shows? Go look at the link he provided, there's images.
MadCow.
I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
In a nutshell, this is saying that you can not be searched without consent unless a warrant has been issued that specifically states the (a)location and (b) the purpose. But, I'd imagine your employer can search your personal effects because you did consent - likely either through your contract (go back and read the fine print) or by entering the building. The latter is the case here, where there is a little sign in the lobby that basically says entering the building gives your consent to allow security to search your property.
(begin rant)
I'm tiring of all the conspiracy-theorist rhetoric flying around to instill FUD. You can be part of the solution, or part of the problem. Did you vote in the last election? When was the last time you wrote your representative? The newspaper outlining your objections in detail so others may read it? In short, have you exhausted the considerable assets you have at your disposal, guaranteed by the Constitution? Our system works, and it works well if you use it. The problem here is apathy and general ignorance. So do something about it. This country has become what it is because capitalism has allowed us to be limited only by our own potential. Likewise, if unchecked capitalism becomes self-centered and materialistic, and it is the job of our government to counter that with the voice of reason and justice. Instead of bitching about how big business is giving it to you up the a$$, start supporting legislation to reform the process and get big money out of the picture. Support bills like S479 and HR1482, that are trying to appropriate funding so that the voting process is modernized and uniformly administered. Hell, write your own and have your Senator or Representative sponsor it. You're a victim only if you are willing to be victimized. So take the immense power you wield as a member of this Republic* and do something about it.
(end rant)
*not Democracy, but that's another rant.
For those of you advocating the "grin-and-bear-it" attitude, I have a question: Do these new searches and security measures actually improve security?
I don't think it does: insane, murderous people will always find a way to get evil done. Humans are amazingly resourceful, and can find their way around pretty much any obstacle. When you build the proverbial "better mousetrap", the world may beat a path to your door, but you also make a smarter mouse.
The solution is not beefing up security and making every citizen a suspect; rather, it is in removing the fertile grounds of madness.
She sat at the window watching the evening invade the avenue.
Maybe it's been too long since I worked for a defense contractor where your briefcase was searching going into as well as out of the facility... but I don't see the problem. The company has trade secrets, etc., that it has to protect. Heck, the company I work for now used to have a policy where anyone bringing a camera on the premises could be fired.
If this were happening while entering or leaving a public place, that's a different story.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
All jobs have pros and cons, one of the cons about jobs that affect everyone in general is that when there is a WAR your personal freedoms get a little squashed.
America is not officially at War - Congress has yet to issue a Declaration of War.
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Having spent my summer in Israel where you don't get searched but there is a constant heightened vigilance against any monkee business, I have to say the USA is going about this searching thing half assed.
What we need is better foreign intelligence, fewer foreign nationals coming here and getting treated better than we treat ourselves (Seth Greenberg in Boston can stop sucking up to any Saudi with a credit card) and a return to main street small town values.
Go ahead and flame away.
I've hit Karma 50 and gotten a Score:5, Troll... I win!
Can you imagine what people would have done 100 years ago if they weren't allowed to walk into their place of work without being searched? Revolt, that's what.
Why do we have an ever increasing tolerance for having our freedom removed by the state? Partially due to the fear mongering we're exposed to every day (the recent corporate media coverage of the hijackings was a pretty good example). Fear and paranoia are very real and I understand why people would think that it's reasonable to give up their freedom in exchange for protection but we have to realize who's giving the protection, what type of protection their giving us, and why they are removing our freedom.
The state has a lot to gain from isolating us from each other. Now we need protection against those "Whackos" at the place where we work. Who remembers the string of videos for kids in the 80's with the message "Never talk to strangers"? Communities question, discuss, and have the power to act. This is pretty threatening to the man. Safer for him if we're isolated and afraid of other people and if our personal freedom is severely restricted. "Terrorist" is just the buzzword of the day to further the public psyches' fear of each other.
Remember everyone, good citizens go to work/school, drive their individual vehicle home, lock the door, turn on the alarm, and watch TV. Let the police take care of the criminals/activists/terrorists/illegal aliens/anarchists/immigrants/(insert flavour of the month here).
The princess.
The newest revisions included in the USA act awaiting passage this very moment blur the lines considerably, reducing all citizens to potential victims of secret FISA warrants, black bag jobs, and surveillance of their communications and financial transactions as detailed in this write-up of the bill at ACLU.ORG
More troubling by far are the sentiments echoed in this story at the Washington Post, which contain speculations by government officials about the need to apply torture to material witnesses and the justification for this torture due to the urgent nature of the investigation. Mind you, these are material witnesses, not indicted criminal suspects. The fact that they have not been indicted removes all Miranda rights protections from them, including right to counsel. The fact that they are not citizens removes any protections against unlimited detention. There are persistent but unconfirmed reports of the detainees in Manhattan being subjected to sleep and sensory deprivation, and reports that doctors are being called in to determine exactly the levels of "pressure" they can be subjected to, as well as recommending drugs to be used to assist in interrogation. These reports seem to indicate that the torture has already started, and is not merely being discussed. The participation of doctors in this kind of torture, even in a monitoring capacity, is directly against the Nuremberg Code, the UN Principles of Medical Ethics, and the UN Convention against Torture.
As a nation, we are perilously close to returning to the days of the Cold War and before when unwitting human experimentation in mind-control and behavior modification was conducted in secret, when U.S. soldiers were drugged and in some cases driven to suicide in order to try out the very "truth serums" being discussed in the Post article, and when conscientious objectors were used as guinea pigs for starvation and cold weather exposure experiments not so very different from those that Nazi doctors were hung for at the end of WWII.
Looking at things from a legal point of view, we are either at war with someone, or we are not. If we are at war, then aren't the people being held in Manhattan Prisoners of War, and subject to the protections of the Geneva Convention? If we are not at war, then this all devolves into a pure criminal proceeding where coerced testimony, "assisted interrogation" and the like are clearly unconstitutional and will poison any cases ever brought against these people.
The corrupting influence at work here is the mixing of Intelligence activities and criminal proceedings, which are anathema to each other. Intelligence is the world of innuendo, hunches, and threads of circumstance where decisions to attack aspirin factories with cruise missiles can be made on the slimmest of evidence, or none at all. Criminal prosecution depends on rigorously documented chains of evidence, sworn testimony and eye-witnesses. Phrases like "beyond a reasonable doubt" seemed to appear frequently the two times I was a juror, once in a murder trial. Due to this difference, the FBI is not institutionally equipped to operate in the Intelligence community, and the CIA is psychologically unable to grasp the difference between rumor and evidence. Mixing the two as the USA act does will forever damage the integrity of our nation's government and reduce the United States to a totalitarian state the likes of which the world has never seen before:
Every totalitarian distopia ever envisioned in literature (or occurring in real life, over time) has one attribute in common: the crushing lack of personal luxury for the masses. This has been at least a partial stimulus to any resistance against these regimes. The levels of affluence in most of the US, combined with the public's ability to have their attention monopolized by the most recent media craze, whether the Gary Condit affair, or the current Anthrax scare, makes us most susceptible to a gradual erosion of our rights. The frogs are being not so gently boiled right now and no one is complaining too much.
Write to your Congress-Critters today!
"I fear for the Republic"
Tom Porter
"I am now altering the deal. Pray I do not alter it further"
...and thousands of people die every year because they drive or ride in automobiles.
You're telling *us* to put things in perspective?
Terrorism is one of the last things I'm afraid of, and I refuse to submit to restrictions imposed by the irrational fear of others.
"We have to go forth and crush every world view that doesn't believe in tolerance and free speech." - David Brin
your employers probably have every right to fire you if you don't comply. but if you are a quality employee and your position is important enough to require special skills that you posess, why would they want to terminate you? at the very least, raise the issue with your superiors. ask the guards what the policy is if you refuse, or what exemptions you might be able to get. it may be as simple as asking, or getting a few coworkers to rally together and collectively work to change the policies.
Nice try; but I'll bet that the brave firefighters and police who died that day would wish they died unnoticed when they look down from Heaven and see how much of our freedom we've lost.
1) Put up with it. Where I work they do the same thing. So the security guard gets to see my sweaty workout clothes. Big deal. 2) Try to change the system. 3) Quit. I think #1 is the most reasonable choice. If they start doing body cavity searches, then by all means, investigate #2 and #3!
"The advanced societies of the future will be driven by competing systems of psychopathology." -JG Ballard
We all agree trading liberty for security gives you neither, but trading security for convenience? That's absurd!
From your statement, I can only guess that you are somehow drawing a correlation between being a citizen (of the U.S., I'm assuming) and having the "birthright" to a free society. At least in the case of the United States, those born as citizens do enjoy the same freedoms as the rest of the citizens. In that kind of argument, I suppose you could say freedom is a birthright. But that's not what I'm intending to argue against.
What I'm intending to say is that the world owes you, I and everyone else nothing. Freedom is not a given. Freedom is not a fundamental law of nature. Saying that I, by supporting my government's efforts to provide better security for my fellow citizens, am betraying the birthright of my children has no validity to me because I don't consider freedom something that is gifted upon birth and automatically assumed for life.
As I said, I can see your argument. A given country allows the right of it's citizens to live in a "free society". When a person is born in said country, the person is given citizenship by default. Therefore, the right to live in a "free society" is a birthright. Good logic...except that the right to live in a "free society" came at (and will always come at) a cost. It may not be paid by you, so you'll never know about it and may even feel that freedom really is your "birthright". But don't be fooled.
Our generation may well end up paying the price for the freedom of future generations. That's something I can live with.
My sigs always suck.
IAAL (California Bar), the search in question, is valid, as it is not imposed on the personal property of the individual in question, the santity of his home, personal property and other related inheritence; thus the search in question, taken on behalf of a government entity, imposed not individualistically, but generally, conforming to all entities concerned, equally, is valid within all accepted federal and state/DC laws, the individual concerned should apperaciate that their other rights are being protected by this unquestionablly valid search.
Thank you.
I know that the airports have a lot more security now but how much? What are the major changes you've seen? I'm especially interested about Canada and how Canada is responding.
Thank you
internet like monkeys'
I'm tired of the "I'm tired of whiners mentality."
Yes, security is important, but so are rights. And the two go hand in hand, they are NOT opposed.
I am more afraid of the National Guard at airports than terrorists. I am more afraid of the police and surveillance cameras than I am of anthrax. Why? Not because I'm a criminal, but because I don't have to be if the police have too much power! By the time they have their way with you, it's too late. Look at Rodney King, or the people whose assets have been siezed under anti-drug laws.
No, lets get some REAL security, and REAL freedom at the same time.
1) Stop illegally restricting the Second Amendment. The recent US vs. Emerson case completely affirmed that the second amendment gives citizens a right to keep and bear arms without needing the government's consent. In the majority of states non-felons can already carry firearms, but there is a complex morass of "permit" systems however. Change that to a national one time background check and issue a permit on demand for nominal (read $20 fee) good forever, until revoked by act of law (such as conviction of felony etc).
Lets stop creating "designated target" zones by disarming our citizens at schools, government buildings, airports, on the streets and in their homes... Armed citizens and pilots would have prevented all the 9/11 attacks, at NO cost to liberty or government coffers. Search technology is expensive and considerably (orders of magnitude) less effective, it is almost always used to hassle petty criminals (simply because only 1 in a billion or more searches actually find terrorists).
As for biological agents delivered remotely (ie. the mail). Bio agents can be neutralized by heat, light, and chemicals.
Worried about the mail? Run it through rollers at 170 C. Cost to taxpayers? Minimal. Have a special class of heat sensitive mail (photos, packages, flammables etc) that is subject to different handling.
No searches required.
How about aerosol chemicals, food poisoning, water systems blablabla?
The fundamental question to ask is: does the government have a truly valid reason to suspect you? If yes, they will have no problem getting warrants. If not, they shouldn't be able to search you.
A "reasonable expectation of privacy?"
The reasonability of privacy expectations in a public place is directly related to the unreasonability of allowing free access to that place.
Is it reasonable to allow free access to nuclear weapons? NO. Is it reasonable to allow search free access to a football stadium? YES. You think terrorists will be stupid enough to try to sneak through searches with bombs anyway? Why bother. They'll find some better means to blow you up if they know about the searches.
When it comes to searching employees of NIH, what do they expect to find? Those tiny microbes you've carefully hidden by wiping a billion of them on your left pinky? It'd take several days to grow cultures and detect them. Guns. Not a problem if citizens could have their rights back. Bombs? Don't kid yourself. Who would bother going through the search. Just park the car out front like at Oklahoma city.
Lets get real people, the fact that a few terrorists attacked "designated victims" (read forceably disarmed citizens on an airplane) took control of an airline and smashed it into a building is NOT reason to give free reign to the government to probe our lives. It IS reason to stop creating "designated victims"
Anthrax through the mail? Don't make me laugh. This is a minor procedural problem easily handled by sterilizing mail.
It's impossible to prevent someone from turning common household bleach and ammonia into a chemical warfare agent. Get used to it. Searches won't help us be safe. Quite the opposite.
((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) http://www.endpointcomputing.com a scientific approach to custom computing.
The US Constitution protects you from abuses from the government, not your employer. You are free to find work elsewhere.
I don't know about the US, but in Canada it is illegal for anyone, including your employer, to do body/bag/car searches without either your consent or a search warrant, in which case, the search would be performed by a law officer, and not your employer/security guard.
It's better to burn out than to fade away
I live in the UK - am I being in fair in thinking that a large number of Americans do seem to moan and spout on excessively about their supposed rights! I find this ironic in a country where workers have so few rights, there's no state health care, segregation still existed in the 60s, etc, etc, etc.
So what if you get checked at work? It so pretentious to say 'I'm a scientist, I'm surely beyond suspicion'.
People in the UK have lived with terrorism for years, from an organisation sponsored and recently actively funded by numerous freedom loving citizens in the US. Thanks for that.
We're used to the inconvenience of a little security. I've been stopped and searched by the police, I have my bag checked going into museums for goodness' sake.
Who cares?
Change Employer and move on. If they ask you why you are leaving tell them.
This is a sign of the time - increasingly the US and other countries are seeing the threat of terrorism as a clarion call to crack down on the genral community and most members of that community can see nothing wrong with that - they are scared.
The actions of the terrorists in the US have led to a world paranoid about threats - the media hype the anthrax scare to the point where everyone is scared of their own shadow, security is tightened everywhere and now they are talking about deportation and imprisonment without trial indefinetly - thus the planks of the constitution and the democtratic legal system are being slowly pulled away in what may very well be the best of intentions.
Your employer, government or not, can argue they have the right to search you and in the current climate they can do so as not many people will object - im not against searches in some ways but if someone has the proper access and id then why search them ? the fact is that locking down buildings and demanding searches wont stop terrorist attacks, they dond even need to be in a building for gods sake !
The general population of the US and Australia (where i live) are the same - the man in the street (sheep) does not question the government and will follow whatever actions the government can make justifiable - the US president didn't even get 50% of the primary vote ?
We need to make sure that the actions of our elected representatives are tempered with common sense and that they are held to account for ALL of them - the US constitution is a powerfull document - i have a copy on the wall of my office because even though im not an american i love the words and think that all countries should have such a document BUT if the government does not have checks and balances applied by the general populace they can ignore it with all too much ease by using the calls of public safety and national security - and brand anyone who does not agree a traitor = dont believe me - what about the McCarthy era ? the first, fifth and fourth amendments (and others) were trampled into the dust by the government and the people stood by and cheered.
Always be aware that freedom is impossible to regain after it has been lost
I refuse to argue with Anonymous Cowards - if you want a discussion get an account....
This is not a Fourth Ammendment issue. The search isn't something that is being forced upon you by law. It is something being requested by your employer, and if you don't like it, you don't have to enter their building and get searched. You have the freedom to say No, thus no rights are being infringed.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Living in Israel, we always had these searches, and its not that bad.
People here are totally ignoring the fact that this truly does protect against bombing attempts.
This is not so prevasive, and you'll survive a guy looking into your bag, to make sure its not a bomb.
I understand the feelings people have about the indefinite arrests, secret searches, etc. But a guy looking through your bag to make sure its not a bomb?
You'll live.
Yes! We are at war, and must remain vigilant lest infiltrators tear us apart from within! Eastasia is in the grip of Emmanuel Goldstein and mus...er, I mean, Afghanistan is in the palm of Osama Bin Laden! We must root out the wrongthinkers before it's too late!
In case you didn't catch the sarcasm; wartime is no excuse for the sacrifice of liberty. It may happen, but sustained government action and policy cannot be tolerated. Be wary of the myriad "Anti-Terrorism" bills hitting the floor of Congress. Some of the terms of these are downright scary.
Do you know how easy this is? I recently had a boss confront me about 3 months worth of URL accesses. Fortunately, I have a tool available to me to keep them honest. Either party can extract their pound of flesh
What exactly is the price that you have to pay for the freedom to be able to come and go as you choose without being searched? Is it a price that only soldiers pay, like the people in our armed forces who died in WWII so that you can live in peace and enjoy that freedom? Or is it a price that some civilians must pay, like the people in the World Trade Center? Regardless of how you look at it, it's always a few giving their lives so that the many can have the object, the goal -- freedom, safety, security, privacy, the right to pursue happiness.
However, it obviously doesn't make sense to say that "we all must die so that we can have freedom". Then who is left to enjoy the freedom? No one. Of course this doesn't make sense -- but so what?
Well, "so what" is that, if we're not already there, we are quickly approaching an era when a single person can get off a plane at Chicago O'Hare Airport, walk out onto the sidewalk, release some kind of gas/germ/nanobot, or detonate some device, and kill ALL THE AMERICANS ON THE GLOBE, if not all the human beings. And there will be no one left to enjoy the freedom.
That's why our definitions will have to change. That's why they are calling September 11th a "wake up call". The world is different now. America can and will fall and vanish as thoroughly as the Roman Empire vanished if it does not change with the times. But if America does change, and it puts in place measures and systems that block and defend against terrorism as effectively as we have defended against hostile nations in the past, then you could make a case that those people in the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the planes will not have died entirely in vain.
Don't post on slashdot. Get back to work.
whining, because he has to scan his backpack. You are a scientist ? What do you have in your lab ?
(my most bitter sarcasm I am capable of starts here):
Some nice little pure biochemicals for referemce purposes by any chance ? Hey brother, can you spare a gram of Anthrax ? I kind of hate some guys, you would really do me a favour ? Makes my killing so much more efficient.
Hey, here is the deal. I tell you how many sleeper interns you guys do have at NIH ? Then you can make a lot of money accepting the award money, ok ? At the side I get a bit of spores and other such niceties. Done deal ?
(end of my most disgusting sarcasm I never wanted to write)
Thats Benjamin Franklin.
just thought I'd let you know,
Case
Fine. Read this and tell me that people aren't being prohibited from flying for weak reasons. http://www.citypaper.net/articles/101801/news.godf rey.shtml
Thanks for proving my point. Fight THIS, not searching someone backpack.
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
Talk to your union!
Not in a union? Then things get tricky; anyone that starts to organise people in the workplace to improve conditions is usually seen as a troublemaker. Going through various levels of bosses can work if everyone up the chain to the boss that has the power to make the decision is reasonable and approachable - otherwise you'll get ignored or marked as a troublemaker.
So, what, Nerds don't care about civil liberties?
/. The newest law permitting 'shoot on sight' for suspected terrorists is of considerably greater interest to me than the latest color of iMac.
(Yes, I am aware that this isn't actually a matter of civil liberties, but it is undoubtably related and similar.)
I don't have a slightest bit of problem with this type of news being on
The security guards are not out to get you. They are there to protect you, and the assets of those who employ them.
Don't like going through security? Then quit.
Become a freelancer, working for yourself at home. I hear that you can make $50K just for reading websites; or licking envelopes; maybe its making necklaces from beads...
--- Generation X: The first generation to have SIG lines inferior to their parents... ---
I have always wondered - what happens if you say "yes, it has been out of my sight since I packed it.", or "no, someone else packed it".
I never have, even when someone else did pack the bag, because I didn't know what would happen if I did tell the truth.
It seems like they're only asking so that you incriminate yourself if something is found on you.
But, what are they instructed to do if you say that someone else has packed it, or had access to it ? I've always wondered.
Working a government lab during an anthrax scare
/.) might be able to chime in. Unfortunately, trolling for free legal advice didn't pan out and I'll have to resort to my own devices. When/if I get more info, I'll report back in.
First and foremost, long before the events of Sept. 11th, I had given plenty of thought to the resources available for agents of destruction. Kind of a side hobby since I enjoy medical thriller fiction and macguyver =). The fact remains that if I were inclined to engage in 1) taking things from my lab or 2) bringing a weapon of mass destruction to the NIH, I can tell you right now not a single security precaution operating at the NIH (to my knowledge) would stop me from doing so. The security checkpoints, which abound, are staffed almost exclusively by hired security, not trained, capable individuals. I'm 100% certain I could carry an overt weapon, such as a gun, into high security areas. I've more than 100% certain I could do the same with a chemical/biological weapon (CBW). The state of security does not at all impart me with any sense of heightened protection except from all but the most incompetent persons.
Why should I have anything to worry about being searched?
Aside from feeling that I'm having my rights violated, I don't have a reason. That's why it wasn't an issue until I finally got fed up. What am I carrying? Notes, journals, text books. Here's the funny bit, it's also 100% standard to carry hazardous chemical and biological agents from building to building. Heck, that's how things get around. If I wanted to walk into the Clinical Center (one of the more high profile buildings on campus) with tubes of Bacillus anthracis, Yersinia pestis, or Clostridium botulinum, I could. I would simply put them in a cooler, on ice, slap a biohazard sticker on it and walk right over with my lab coat and id. Fact of the matter is, I've carried biologicals straight through checkpoints without an issue. But, when I carry a backpack, they want to search that. Should my CDs and notes be of national security?
More importantly, that question is possibly the worst question to ask in a 4th ammendment issue. From cryptography to random street searches, it's foolish to ask why someone has something to hide.
"Wake up! You should be *happy* they are doing these searches. They are protecting you."
See the above responses. I'm 1) definitely not being protected and 2) that's the same thing the Justice Department has to say about other indiscriminate search efforts.
You have a right to refuse. You also have a right to be fired
OK. This is the part where the real legal advice factors in. Either way the law falls, I'm still bitter about this principle. I have a lot of rights. I also have a lot of reasons to depend on the Federal Government or my employer (which, lo and behold, are one and the same). We have a lot of privacy protections. The same protections that hold insurance companies accountable for screening people for genetic predispositions to diseases and charing them accordingly. It's their right to choose whether they insure you or for what price, but it's not their right to do so based on your genetic code. It's not AT&T's right to listen in on my long distance phone calls, even though it's their right to choose whether or not to provide me with LD service. It's a teenager's right to go to high schol. It is not the high school's right to ask the student if he/she has HIV and separate them from their classmates based on that. More directly related to employment, it's not the employer's right to involve themselves in your medical issues, unless your work specifically requires that. In my case, since I work with human clinical samples, specimens, and pathogens, it is in my best interest to be tested for infectious diseases and be properly vaccinated before starting work. This is not necessary for a secretary and I think people would find it extreme to require the same level of medical exam that I endured be given to non-lab personnel. It's not their right to ask me if I'm homosexual. It's not their right to ask me if I voted republican. And I contend it's not their right to search me, my car, or my personal effects without probable cause.
Your privacy rights should not be contingent on your participation in society. They are contingent on probable cause and a warrant. Anecdotally, there are obviously examples in which this does not hold true. But I would like to cling tenaciously to every right to privacy I can and not give them up willingly.
IANAL
I was somewhat hoping some with legal experience in 4th ammendment rights issues (considering this is not the first time a privacy issue has been raised on
Thanks to everyone for responding. Regrettably, I haven't been able to read as many as I'd like, and I'll try to get to more and respond more directly to comments. I appreciate your thoughts, particularly those of you supporting my idealism.
Ciao, C.Sc.
Wow..
Take a reality check!!
America is really screwed up if we are to take your comment at face value - ie. You seem to make out that it's almost a matter of fact that someone is going to rampage with a gun.
To quote: "If the facility does NOT have the resources to spend on an armed response team" - the underlying mentality is scary...
...if they searched what you brought OUT? o.O
> I work at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda
"You seem to make out that it's almost a matter of fact that someone is going to rampage with a gun."
No, but it IS a matter of fact that a business must take "reasonable care" to prevent security problems that could injure it's employees, customers, or visitors. Workplace violence is one of those problems. If a business does not take these steps, and something does happen then they are very likely to be sued for negligence. Even if they do take those steps, they can still be sued; but if the business can demonstrate that they exersized "due dilligence" then they have a chance of winning the case.
I don't think it is a "matter of fact" that every house will burn down or have a flood, but that doesn't mean that people shouldn't have insurance. Is the underlying mentality of flood insurance scary, too?
BTWIINAL.
Thankyou,
But those links just talk about what happens if you are a smart arse.
I just want to know what happens if you tell the truth, and say that someone else did pack your bags.
Is it illegal to tell the truth now ?
It seems rather stupid to ask the question "did you pack your bags" if it's only legal to say "yes".
It will be up to a judge to make that definition. In the environment we live in today you might find that a search of personal effects -- especially in a federal target area -- is considered reasonable.
and you have the right to start you own business.
You don't have the right to demand that you have a job from cradle to grave in the USA. Nor should you.
It's illegal, even if bearing proper permits, to carry a firearm onto government property. I don't have the exact reference, but in one of the regular 'Security Updates' we get at the NIH, they specifically mentioned that.
As for being at Ground Zero in a war. I'd like to remind you that so far, all anthax letters have been sent to media and politicians. I'm neither. Presently, I do not perceive a threat to my health or wellbeing, from planes, bombs, gunfire, or bioterrorism. No more than I did two months ago.
Just get used to it. The rest of the world has been living with them for ages and noone died because someone glanced in their handbag/purse. If you think just how much more secure it makes your environment, you may realize the tradeoff.
Before anyone jumps on my throat with the "civil rights til death" thing, try thinking about it for a change. I'm for my civil rights as much as anyone else here but I'd rather not die because of a fucking lunatic who brought a gun/bomb/whatever to where I am.
Moderators: Modding down a post because you disagree with it is 1) wrong 2) bad karma 3) fucking stupid.
---
Asking if someone else packed your bags or if your bag has been out of your sight is likely to subject you to some extra scrutiny. Accept this extra scrutiny willingly, it's for your safety. There is a small chance that while the bag was out of your sight, someone slipped a bomb or other similar device into it.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke
OK, but let us make a difference between a civilian institution and a military organization... The latter might not retain the BEST talent, but the most loyal one (and it gets court-marshalled when it stops being that loyal...) The former one should not expect civilians to be voluntary searched WHENEVER he superiors decide to do that.
Yes, I'm not from the US originally and yes, my employer has rather close ties to the US defence, but (thanks God!) I've never got ANY unreasonable searches so far.
Federal bureocracy maybe?
PaulBu
So it sounds like if you say "yes", that they definitely x-ray your bags and stuff.
I've had that happen to me once as a random check anyway. Saying "yes" probably just makes it a definite.
Is that right ?
I was worried that saying "yes" would mean you'd have to wait for hours for your chance for a body cavity search, and have to dump your luggage contents all over the floor to be picked through with tweezers.
" They that can give up liberty to obtain a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin
Although I find this quote fairly accurate, and as said before, one must understand that there are acceptions to this. Especially in wartime. The reason as to why security is so tight is because we don't know who the enemy is, people were shocked to find out that the terrorists were people who they conversed and lived next to many years prior to 09-11-01. However, I must agree with Chico Science and find that having your personal belongings and car checked a bit on the absurd side. What are you going to do, manage to stash potentially dangerous biological warfare materials before even reaching your car??? But at the same time, most of the U.S. should realize that this is to a certain point, hysteria. Washington D.C. was not invaded since the War of 1812, and we have never been attacked by other nations with such a high loss of civilian life in our nation's history. These certainly would grant a certain level of humiliation, and anger that we don't want to see repeated. But still, we need to keep this panic in check, for fear it may go to far, and Franklin's quote will prove its point.
Los Angeles: 1,000 suburbs in search of a city.
those who want liberty and security deserve no liberty or security at all
Unfortunately, a business can do most any legal thing to you that doesn't void some contract you have with them. This includes performing searches on its employees to making them wear costumes of famous chickens to work. It isn't fair and it doesn't make it right. Sure you could quit, but I'm assuming there's some non-trivial reason you haven't already (you may like/need your job). Everytime a search is performed for no other reason than there is a 1 in 100,000 chance that the person being searched is a criminal, they are making that person prove their innocence. It doesn't matter that these searches are performed by private business that can deny you employment, goods or services for non-compliance which is perfectly legal. It still isn't right to assume you want to break the law. That is the justification for objection to the search. The sheep that advocate this fear induced assumption of guilt, act under good pretenses, safety and protection, but are neglecting the fact that most people are still not criminals. Creating a police state because of a perceived threat (the current threat isn't really any higher than it was before) is not only irrational, but indignant to all law abiding people. You have nothing to hide, nor should you be made to prove it. "Actions don't make criminals, laws do." - Martha
Mount Sinai/NYU in NYC has had this policy for years. I was a graduate student there and it bothered me to no end that I had to have my bag searched just to go to classes.
I haven't been at NIH in several years, but I remember that, although IDs were issued, there was usually no one to check them. At Mt Sinai you had to get finger-printed and drug tested just to be *admitted* to the graduate school, and you weren't allowed in the research buildings if you didn't have your ID out and visible.
Nobody but a scientist would ask Slashdot for legal advice.
Censorship on Slashdot
Quit acting like a spoiled kid. You don't know what draconian means. Someone looks in your bag before entering a building and all of a sudden it's draconian. That's simple security for your own protection and the protection of others. Next time thank the guard and move on.
[You have a right to refuse searches] and they have a right to fire you for doing so
In the UK, we have a concept of 'constructive dismissal', where an employer does something entirely unreasonable which forces you to quit you get to sue them through an industrial tribunal [court]. Surely the US has some similar protection? Talk to your Union Rep.
Except the US didn't really have a gun culture when the revolution occurred. After the Civil War is when we got our first real taste of guns, because the Union had bought so many and supplied them to its troops (the first arms modern dealers). This is also the first time the US had widespread banditry, from the war veterans with guns and time but no economic opportunity.
Maybe if you read a book instead of American Rifleman once in a while you'd know this. And please don't equate gun ownership with free software. That pisses me off.
There are plenty of purely civilian sorts of places that require amed guards and precautions. Why should we feel that only the military should be well protected?
As I type this there are a TON of pretty pissed off Postal workers who're finding out that they've just been chalked up as collateral damage. Sux huh? A gun at the gate or added search wouldn't have helped them in this case but I'll bet that if it could have they'd be mad it didn't happen, no?
I'll grant that as a civilian he doesn't have to subject himself to a search, certainly not without having been warned beforehand, but geez it's NOT just the military that's under attack now - it's you and me! Bin Laden thinks that all US taxpayers are as guilty as the armed forces - that's a threat and the US populace needs to wake up to this fact. They don't call this a WAR for kicks....
Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
I think I had this checking in clerk last time I flew, because she asked me to search my own bag. Yes true!
Firstly I was asked by the Clerk if I packed my Own bag ?
Me: Er, Yes I replied.
Clerk: Has you bag remained in sight since packing?
Me: Er, no it's been in the boot (trunk).
Clerk: Can you search it please.
Me: Er really ?
Clerk: Yes.
Me: OK, doing so.
As case leaves my sight, disappearing down the conveyor.
Me: It's left my sight when do I have search it again?
Clerk: Stern unamused look, that has my whole party in hysterics, and results in them all having to search their own bags.
A dramatic reconstruction of a true story!
When I stepped out the door of my apartment this morning, I smelled concrete again from the WTC, and it's more than a month later. If you were down here in the middle of what's going on, you would realize that the FBI has a lot more to worry about right now than your pot plants.
Don't post on slashdot. Get back to work.
Many corporations search bags (not usually thoroughly) when people enter or leave their buildings. They're mainly worried about people stealing stuff, and about people bringing in things they'll argue about the ownership of when they leave (laptops, etc.), and some are paranoid about cameras because people could photograph sensitive material.But you're working at the National Institutes of Health -- like DUH! When there's a biological warfare panic going on, it's not surprising they'd be especially worried about people bringing dangerous germs home from one of the places the government keeps them. You're lucky they don't make you shower on the way out the door.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
YES I am still employed. And in this case, abusing the government resource would be defined as clicking on the "My Netscape" button every morning. Even though you iconify the browser, it merrily updates itself all day long.
Right, but the example in the parent post was related to travelling and airports.