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 /.
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
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.
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
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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...
Wake up! You should be *happy* they are doing these searches. They are protecting you.
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"
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.
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. :-)
>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
Now, the Best Buy Nazis are a lot more serious about it. They tend to be big, bouncer-types and take their job very seriously. I walked right past one of them the other month, and he said: "Sir, can I see your receipt?" I replied with my standard, "No, that's OK, I don't need that today," while continuing to walk. He followed me out into the parking lot (!): "Sir, I NEED to see your receipt." I kept walking. "No, I believe you're mistaken: You don't need to see my receipt." (A little Jedi-mind-trick action there). He stopped following, realizing the basic impotence of his position, and yelled at my back: "Well, you're NOT WELCOME here as a customer, anymore!"
I was so surprised I unfortunately did not put my purchase in my trunk and go back to speak to the manager, but I did call the manager when I got home. He wouldn't come out and say that I didn't need to get my receipt checked, but when I pressed and said, "I spend about $250 a month with you guys, would you rather have me walk through without showing my receipt, or would you rather have my money go somewhere else?" He replied, "Oh, we absolutely want your business!"
Anyway, bottom line, the Fry's receipt checkers are imminently ignorable. They don't have the right to detain you or search you. They could detain you until the police arrive if they suspect you're shoplifting, but they don't want to engage in that hassle (and a possible lawsuit) for the average customer.
Yes, the message is loud and clear: once it's all about the children, it's no longer even remotely about freedom. Thank you for betraying the way of life that was your children's birthright; you may now scurry back to your hole in safety.
Personally, I don't have too many problems with this particular topic, since some sort of search does seem to be a reasonable approach in this instance provided that its done equitably and professionally. (Where I work the searches are done haphazardly, so as to provide the appearance of security without the actual security benefits - now that's annoying). And, it's optional since you could choose to work somewhere else.
But I'm sick of hearing from folks who would rather trade my freedom for their security, by allowing civil liberties of all people to be infringed in the interest of the "war on terrorism". There is no security in this world, pursuit of it is illusory at best, the best that we can do is stand up as free men and women for what we believe in, and be willing to fight and die for those things if necessary. Anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is selling something, Princess.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
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
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.
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.
band together to resist these laws. there's power in numbers, join the ACLU [aclu.org]
What laws are you talking about? This is nothing more than a trade.
All trade involves each side giving up something it has a right to. Employment is just another form of trade and when it is "at will", either side can terminate the employment relationship at any time for (almost) any reason. You can quit if you don't like the searches, or you can voluntarily agree to allow yourself to be searched and they can voluntarily agree to pay you.
If the employer (who may be the US government) deals with items that are potentially useful to terrorists, I think it would be negligent for such a company to not implement security measures that stop such material from walking out the front door. That means they can do one of three things: A) not do business at all B) do business safely, with inspections of employees C) do business unsafely and risk liability damages is something happens.
They are probably being responsible by choosing B.
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.
(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 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
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.
Just for the sake of continuing the debate...
First of all, let me say that taking away civil liberties, especially those dealing with privacy, leaves a really bad taste in my mouth. Also, just as a point, living in a free society is not a birthright. It is something fought and suffered for.
That being said, I'd like to remind you that we are now living in a time where there are people who not only want badly to kill us but are willing to die so long as we, the relatively innocent masses, are killed as well.
Given that our government have many, many surveillance techniques at their disposal, wouldn't you think it to be prudent that they use said techniques in an effort to prevent more heinous acts like these from happening to our citizens?
And yes IMHO, once it reaches to the next generation, it does become more important. My generaion is dead to me, now. Once we have children, it becomes almost obvious to me (in a very primal sense) that I'm no longer alive for my benefit, but for that of my children. My productive, rather happy life is a great bonus, rather than the entire goal. As such, I see our children inheriting two different possible societies. In one, we (my generation and older) have had to suffer some temporary indignations in the hopes of keeping our nation strong. In the other, we still have an underpowered intelligence and law-enforcement community, or perhaps, no such community at all since the nation has shaken itself apart in fear.
Apocolyptic? Sure. All I can hope for at the moment is that it's just the paranoia talking and everything'll work out just fine.
My sigs always suck.
"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.
It's easier to embarass them by stopping. I love it when the little beeper-detection deals go off on me. I just drop my package, or set it down, walk over to the wall, hands on the wall, feet spread and ask the guy loudly, "You're not doing the rubber glove thing again, are you?".
You get some weird looks...
If you can take out the infantry guarding the mechanized weapon, you can destroy the weapon. If you have small arms, you *can* take out the infantry.
The argument, however, is true. If every block of a city is defended by a modest supply of small arms, the city is unconquerable. Destroyable, perhaps, but unconquerable. If there are enough defenders with guns, and the government-gone-bad doesn't have the will to exterminate the city, the revolution is successful. You can only be conquered if the enemy can send in flesh and blood people to impose their word as law. If you have small arms, you can keep sending those would-be conquerors back home in coffins indefinitely. If the would-be conqueror is not willing to use weapons of mass destruction, they must eventually withdraw.Small arms also tend to keep the police and other government enforcers reasonable. If John Suspect might be carrying a gun, law enforcement won't be nearly so quick to put him in a position where he has nothing left to lose. Ditto for prospective mass murderers, muggers, rapists, and so forth.
-- ;-)
Kuro5hin.org: where the good times never end.