Slashdot Mirror
London Tube Dangerous for Technophiles?
TsukiKage writes "Traveling on the London Tube is dangerous these days, it seems - and not because of terrorists. Quick as ever to try and protect against the attack that has just happened, zealous police will detain you at the drop of a hat." From the article: "The next train is scheduled to arrive in a few minutes. As other people drift on to the platform, I sit down against the wall with my rucksack still on my back. I check for messages on my phone, then take out a printout of an article about Wikipedia from inside my jacket and begin to read. The train enters the station. Uniformed police officers appear on the platform and surround me ... They handcuff me, hands behind my back, and take my rucksack out of my sight. They explain that this is for my safety, and that they are acting under the authority of the Terrorism Act."
The MBTA in Bostonhas instituted a search policy on the commuter rail and subway. They say the station I come into in the morning (North Station) has about 25000 people come in during rush hours in the AM, making it impracticel tosearch everyone. Ithink "random" searches are never random -- people gettargetted.
The ACLU has a detailed page describing how to deal with a search request. One of the primary differences in the US and UK is clearly illustrated -- I don't mean this as a slam on the UK, merely pointing out a difference. In the US every ctizen is supposed to be immune from unreasonable search. Of course the definition of reasonable is opem to debate. But it's only by people pushing against crazy things like these train searches that we are able to defend indivual freedoms.
With the recent supreme court ruling in the Hiibel case it's more important than ever that citzens defend the right that are given to them. I hope other Bostonians will print out a copy of the ACLU's advice page ann keep it with them when they travel on the T. If you are an American and live in a place that has unreasonable searches, contact your local ACLU and see what they advise.
Regretting that you can't do something in the war on terror? Here's your opportunity. Defend civil liberties at home.
Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm
Terrorism Act = Patriot Act? Its funny, they don't sugar coat it like the US does.
Either you detain them and we get stories like this poping up, or you don't and once it is a actual bomber or something and people looking for someone to blame start asking "well he was clearly suspicious, he should have been stopped, detained, and questioned. Had that happend we wouldn not be dealing with one of the worse tragedies of our time." Sad but true.
The presence of a slightly suspicious person shuts down a train for a few hours? It seems that an organized civil disobedience effort could keep the entire London tube system offfline indefinitely by wearing backpacks and using cell phones in carefully chosen stations and times. How long could that go on before someone realizes it's not preventing terrorism and it's more trouble than it's worth for everyone?
I do SERIOUSLY think the UK has gone too far. Taking DNA, fingerprints and more without serious reason (that was evident at the time of the 'arrest' in the story) is absurd, ridiculous and by all means totally out of proportion. If the arrest was valid and 'normal' in the UK the country is truly bonkers and out of whack. What will happen if the terrorism (not just the type done by the muslim fanatics) continues?
Oh. OK. So, not being executed is the gold standard of good treatment by police now? What if they beat him senseless in the process? Still OK because they didn't kill him? Broke a couple of bones, still all right? Permanently crippled someone, still A-OK because they're not dead?
The bottom line is a lot of police forces around the planet are turning into bands of thugs, and the reason they're getting away with it is exactly comments from people like "it's not so bad, they didn't kill him like the other bloke"
Or maybe you could realize that most liberals don't hate America, they just want to make it better. You can't make things better unless you look at what's wrong. It also helps to look at what other countries are doing that is working better. Despite the success the Bush Administration and Fox News have had in turning 'liberal' into some sort of insult, most of them are pretty reasonable people.
Britain is in over-reaction mode, just as the US was after 9/11. Unfortunate, but not suprising. They may get a bit more carried away since they are lacking some of the guarantees our constitution provides, but that doesn't negate other things that they're doing well. Spazzing out as though it did is just silly.
This should just serve to illustrate how important our civil liberties are, especially in times of crisis. This is why the patriot act was and still is a mistake. Further, the U.S. government is never above criticism. That is our right and our duty as citizens. During wartime, the government should be held to higher standards, not lower ones.
Don't know why Mr. May had such a hard time of it. Sounds more like an abberation than a trend, and it's impossible to contruct a trend line from a single point of data.
Crow T. Trollbot
As far as I could tell from the article, the police weren't exactly acting like bands of thugs. I think they they did over-react, and arrest this guy on very little evidence. But, it sounds like, they are just doing what they are expected to do, as handed down by the politicians.
Thing is, from the article, it seems to me like, at least at the start, it wasn't necessarily completely unreasonable for the police to stop the guy and check his things. Although, it does seem like they should have had a bit more cause than just that he didn't give them a smile going through the gate, and had a rucksack and jacket.
The point of unreasonableness came when they inspected his stuff, found NOTHING, and still arrested him. And then, going through his apartment, taking his stuff, building up this dossier and putting it in the national computer, all when he had done *nothing* wrong.
If the police stopped me in a subway or bus station, checked the contents of my bag and frisked me, sure I'd be a little upset about the treatment, but I'd get over it, realizing they're just trying to keep everyone (including me) safe. But to just carry on the way they did when they determined he wasn't a threat, seems truly unreasonable.
But that unreasonableness comes down from the politicians, it sounded like, from the Terrorism Act that was passed by them, not from the police themselves. Sounds to me like they were just doing what they were instructed to do from above.
Oh, and, I think the grandparent was being sarcastic, man. Not serious.
The following is a beautiful quote which i find as relevant today as more than half a century ago...
"In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up." Quote by Martin Niemoller
Here, most of the educated folk realize the folly of the patriot act (voted in, even though most of the voters had not even read the document). My professors, collegues, bosses, all educated people know the damage acts like the patriot act can do and are yet silent.
As the article seems to imply, the day isnt that far away, when THEY come for YOU!
Staying one step ahead!
No, no, no. You're thinking of the "Terrorist act". Big difference.
See, the "Terrorist Act" is where they can search you without probable cause and arrest you if they think you look suspicious in the UK.
Then you have the "Patriot Act", that is completely different. That's where they can search you without probable cause and arrest you if they think you look suspicious in the US.
See? The differences are remarkable.
The ideal we're supporting is a willingness to live with danger in order to live free. That is what our country was based on.
i simply don't understand people who see more menace in western authorities than in terrorist's actions.
You don't understand?
It's because I am about a billion times more likely to be negatively affected by bad or rights-limiting policy than I am to be killed by a terrorist.
I'd rather take a 1:1,000,000,000 chance on not getting hit by a suicide bomber while living a nice life than take a 1:2 chance that I'll suffer at the hands of the government so that they can ensure (and really, they can't even do that) that I won't get hit by a terrorist.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
... and we've only heard one. Bear that in mind before you blame the police, or profiling, or whatever.
-everphilski-
The TPA is supposed to have safeguards, preventing wanton abuse by the police - otherwise they'd just call everyone a terrorist and sort out who was what over the week they get before having to present some evidence. The police can't just arrest anyone they happen to feel like. Well, they can, they're just going to get bollicked by the courts if they try, as happened in the aforementioned case.
This is no different from in the US, where anyone can physically be arrested by the police and subject to whatever searches the police feel like. The Constitution is just paper, it can't physically intervene. All a person can do is plead their case in court and hope for a sensible judge. (More than a few convictions in the US have been overturned on appeal, because the Miranda rights were violated - deomonstrating that it can take several rounds before anyone pays attention.)
It's also important to note we don't know ALL of the facts of the case. For all we know, British Intelligence may have tipped the police off that an attack was likely on that route, sometime soon. In which case, you're dealing with an entirely different scenario to one where the police were acting spontaneously, without due cause. All we can do, at this point, is guess as to the motives involved and the information the police had posessed. (I shall refrain from drawing inferences about the demonic nature of anti-terror squads that posess.)
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I would argue the reason most slashdot posters are slightly left leaning are they are from major urban areas.
I don't agree that education is the sole determining factor. I believe the difference is rural vs urban.
I am a City Councilman in a small town in Idaho (population 5,000). My experiances in this office have colored my opinions about how people approach government. I experianced life in major urban areas only during my 6 years in the military. I am college educated. I am the child of college educated parents. My father was a social worker, my mother was a teacher.
My thesis is that urban populations are raised more dependent on government services. Water, roads, public transportation, schools, recreation, police, fire, social services and so on. When there is a problem, it is usually government related and they expect government to solve the problem. To a smaller extent, rural populations see less government in their daily lives. Local governments have leaner budgets and there is never enough money to go around. So rural people learn to look to themselves and their neighbors for solutions first.
I'm sure its more complicated than that, but that basic viewpoint is very strong. The personal belief that less government is better vs more government is better is very strong. Two people the same education and opposing viewpoints can look at the exact same incident and arrive at diametrically opposite opinions about what was the root cause of the problem and what would be the best solution. And in reality both may be exactly right. What is the proper solution to fix the problem in an urban environment vs what would fix it in a rural environment.
That is why I am an advocate of States rights and local governments. Federal solutions and programs tend to be monolithic and are compromises. They rarely, if ever, meet the needs of everyone. Local solutions tend to be better tailored for their communities. But again, my opinion is colored by my experiances. But I am open minded enough to admit that.