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 /.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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!
not true. You cn't enfirce a policy that braks the law(or regulation, or...etc.)
For example, If my company had a policy of not hiring minorities, doesn't make that policy enforcable by law.
You quit and worked for someone else, gee what are you going to do when everybody is doing it? Take some time to change the law. Yes it CAN be done. I have changed laws. It difficult, a pain in the ass, take a lot of people, but it can be done.
Change the world.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
Right, but unless the search is invasive (*snap of a rubber glove, and the words spread 'em*), it very likely isn't illegal.
Heck for years, all the local libraries have had a policy of searching outgoing bags, briefcases, etc, as they don't want people walking off with the books.
NecroPuppy
I like you, Stuart. You're not like everyone else, here, at Slashdot.
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
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
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.
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!
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?
And a security guard can identify an anthrax sample how?
The searches aren't designed to find such things. The seaches are designed to offer the illusion of security, so the the boss of NIH can say to his boss "I done real good, massah."
It would take very long, very invasive, and very personal searches to top anything dangerous from getting out. But the vast majority of NIH deals with other things. It is, after all, a fully functional hospital.
W
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?
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.
...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.
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.
Wow, i'm glad I don't live in the US!!
The paranoia is really hitting the fan over there.
The only place that I know of where they do searches is at Schiphol airport.
And then only when you board a plane.
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?
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.
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.
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
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
>you should be able to refuse being searched
/. made the last one appear as AC)
Absolutely. And they can refuse to employ you.
You might be able to bring a wrongful dismissal suit against them if you can prove that your terms of employment did not include submitting to security searches, or that the searches were unreasonable. Good luck, though.
My building has several tenants and my company is not the one doing the searches. The building management hires the security firm and they are the ones that (with the agreement of the tenants) have instituted the increased security measures.
People who balk at having their bags searched as they arrive/leave are being told that their options are to not bring bags, or don't come to work. Employees have complained to HR, but the response has been 'this is now company policy to cooperate with building management and security. your signed employment agreement says that you will abide by all company policies of face termination. have a nice day.'
My response is that I don't bring my laptop or lunch to work anymore. The net result is that I get less work done. I don't take stuff home at night, and I don't site at my desk and eat lunch. Actually, this has worked out in my favor since I get to enjoy my evenings/lunchours much more.
If my company says that I have to just deal with the inevitable fact of searches if I'm going to stay employed, then my company has to just deal with the fact that they are going to get a little less work out of me as a result.
(reposting this as
"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.
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.
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.)
> .. 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
If you were an employer, and had spent thousands of dollars on computer equipment, don't you think that you would at least have some right as to what happens on said equipment?
Replace "computer equipment" with "bathroom facilities". You paid for the crapper too, and the plumbing, and the ongoing costs of water, TP and cleaning. I recon you have the same right to make sure somebody isn't in there whacking off on your company time... right? Smile for the camera!
I used to think the same way regarding the company's monitoring of how computers are used, but then I thought of the bathroom example and realized that there are certain reasonable expectations to privacy. Now the question before me is how much monitoring of the computer/network is reasonable.
I still believe the company has the right to whatever computer/network monitoring they care to do, but I don't use the "because they own it" argument any more.
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.
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
A fully functional hospital - which means it has fully functional narcotics, fully functional labs where various things are grown, fully functional medical records... there are lots of things that a quick check of a person's bags will prevent from escaping. Like a big sealed envelope full of confidential medical records, or a few dozen vials of morphine, or a couple of pounds of powdered unicorn horn... c'mon, the fact of the search is itself a powerful disincentive. A security guard may not be able to identify an anthrax sample, but he/she/it has been briefed on who to call to check.
I love vegetarians - some of my favorite foods are vegetarians.
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.
It is paranoia and all this paranoia will not stop terrorists.
This only jeopardize's the liberties and rights of US law-abiding citizens. While trying to protect our liberties, they cut the liberties and we have no protection.
Think about it. Many countries, specially in Europe, have or have suffered in the recent past terrorist activity.
The IRA blew up a hotel in London, expecting to kill Margaret Thacer and her cabinet. A PanAm airplane was blown up by terrorists ontop the Scotish town of Locherby.
Car bombs, killings, shootings... by Unionists have been killing many in Northen Ireland.
Still, British security is far much better than US security. And it is more polite.
You do not need to search every single piece of luggage that boards an airplane... nor every single backpack that enters into a building.
Place proper security (using underpaid untrained people does not count). Use experts in human emotions to detect suspects. Do not profile. Be smart. Invest in security.
ELAL (known as Ever Landing, Always Late.... although it means Israelian Airlines) does this kind of things. Since they started doing that, not even a single hijaker has succeeded.
Israelians are not smarter nor they have a sixth sense (no they do not see "dead people"). How they do that? They train their security people to identify treats, behaviours, patterns... on their passengers. If someone fits one of those patterns, even by a sligth margin, this person gets questioned aside, all this person's belongings are searched and, usually, this means a few minutes of delay.
Nothing like the interminable, nonsese, automatic searches that happen in our Airports. Yes: the personnel will get tired after a few months, so we will be exposed again.
And nothing as nonsense of pilots refusing to fly unless all middle-eastern-looking passengers and/or sikhs and/or hindustanis are deprived of their right to fly.
This is insane.
Most hospitals have very careful systems to prevent people from walking off with things, especially narcotics. They use fine grained accounting, order limits, supervisor approvals, etc. Sure, some could still slip through, but you'd generally have to be either collaborating with the patient or a supervisor for a lab. Even then, frequent audits would turn up a problem. Usually only when a problem arises does someone have to submit to a search. It is probably a little harder to catch abuse in a lab. But frequent audits would quickly find that key supplies were missing, though at that point it could be too late.
(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.
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
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.
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
Actually, if you read what I wrote (what a novel concept!), you'd understand that I wasn't commenting on the Ask Slashdot poster at all. I was only commenting that additional security actually /increases/ public fear, not decreases it, according to the parent post of my reply. But hey, your trolling is appreciated none of the less! :)
Love, sirslud.
"Old man yells at systemd"
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?
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.
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
"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.
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!"
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.
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.
>Actually company's can't simply make up [policies]
Sure they can.
>those policy's have to be in writing by law
They are.
>And they have to give you notice.
They do.
If the company institutes a new policy, they send an email to everyone, the internal website is updated, and a copy is posted in the kitchen areas for 60 days. If the policy is something you can't live with, you are free to quit.
When you sign on, you agree to this. You are given a booklet with all of the current policies and the employment contract you sign says they are allowed to institute new policies as they see fit, they are obligated to notify you in a timely fashion and you are obligated to comply if you want to keep your job.
Of course, if lots of people quit and gave the new policy as the reason, they might have to review their policies, but short of body-cavity searches this isn't likely to become a big enough deal among the average workers.
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.
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!
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
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.
Complain about DCMA, SSS*, etc. But checking your backpack? Sheesh!
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
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, 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.
Yeah, especially if she's attractive.
Really, why not turn this into something fun? Campaign to get a few attractive females on the "scanning" staff, then bring some questionable items out one day along with a bullshit story delivered poorly enough to warrant a full body cavity search.
-Ryan, with the unoriginal sig
Thanks for proving my point. Fight THIS, not searching someone backpack.
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
Are you both talking about an RTP company? One with ties to Cree? More details please.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
I am not sure if I want to rant or be reasonable. If I were to rant, I might remind you that we are now in wartime and the battlefield includes civilian targets in the United States--including small children who in no way can be blamed for any foreign policy sins committed by the United States. They are not even guilty indirectly, as that medieval murderer currently based in Afghanistan would have us believe--little children don't pay taxes or voluntarily consent to the state.
If I were to be reasonable, I might point out that you don't have an unrestricted right to privacy. For one thing, YOUR place of work is not really yours. Like most other places of employment in a market econonmy, your place of employment is privately owned by someone other than you. That entity has the right to regulate the conditions under which you have access to that entity's property. If you don't like the terms on offer, your option in a market is to withdraw your services from the transaction and move on to something you find preferrable. Or you could fight for socialism. I don't see much besides rhetorical obfuscation in between.
"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.
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
unitron is short for university electronics, a nomme de get free catalogs and trade mag subscriptions. I'm a life-long NC resident and spent time in the RTP area circa 1970-75 and 80-81. The NE/SE 555 timer chip is a Signetics product (originally), probably still in production by somebody somewhere (GE, RCA, Sylvania ECG and NTE used to make them as part of their replacement semiconductor lines). I never used one to do Touch-Tone (I think you can use 566s and 567s for that) or any other phone company tones, but I did rig up a pulse width modulation speed control for a Dremel 260 with a 555 and a horizontal output transistor.
I think some Asian company has unitron.com, haven't looked in a while, but I picked up a Windows 3.1 OEM set and book on eBay a few months ago with the unitron brand on it (the "t" is white where the rest of the letters are black, interesting effect). No address for the company in the book, unfortunately, and I haven't gotten around to loading it to check out the splash screen yet.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
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.
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.
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!
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
Right, but the example in the parent post was related to travelling and airports.