New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | July 26, 2005

Charles Peña and Ted Galen Carpenter search for the rationale behind random subway searches.

Comments

|7.26.05 @ 11:41AM|#

Correction to an otherwise good article: these searches are not useless, they are less than useless. They are downright harmful because of the opportunity costs. Police have to be diverted from other pursuits.

|7.26.05 @ 11:43AM|#

JMoore is right: These same cops could be guarding the donut shop instead.

|7.26.05 @ 11:45AM|#

The rationale is to give the cops one more reason to mess with people who are trying to mind their own business. No different from drunk-driving checkpoints, or seatbelt-checkpoints, or anything else.

|7.26.05 @ 11:48AM|#

Hey, if you own that donut shop, this is really hurting your business.

Plus, if cops have to stand around in subway tunnels all day, eventually one of them is going to die of heat stroke. Won't that be good for PR?

|7.26.05 @ 11:50AM|#

They are downright harmful because of the opportunity costs. Police have to be diverted from other pursuits.

True, the cops are somewhat wasting their time and could instead be going after burglers, theives, drug dealers and other dangerous predatory criminals.

No different from drunk-driving checkpoints, or seatbelt-checkpoints, or anything else.

There is however the chance of catching someone, which perhaps means to overcome the 'opportunity costs' we need to hire more police.

Ron Hardin|7.26.05 @ 11:53AM|#

It's only being done in the theater district, and falls under the street theater exemption.

|7.26.05 @ 11:55AM|#

Next thing they'll be randomly checking the bags of people who are near large buildings (i.e. everywhere in Manhattan). After all, McVeigh managed to destroy the Murrah building NOT by going inside, but by just parking next to it.

In all seriousness, if I were al-Qaeda I'd get a flat-chested female suicide bomber and fix her up with enormous D-cup plastic explosive breast implants, just to watch America fuck itself harder trying to deal with THAT threat.

|7.26.05 @ 11:55AM|#

I have an idea. Why not deal with the police the same way we (theoretically) deal with the military? You know, give them an objective, a set of limitations (Bill of Rights), and a budget, then let their senior staff come up with the strategy in the full and certain knowledge that, should the strategy fail, or any of the limitations be violated, the strategists will be crucified.

|7.26.05 @ 11:56AM|#

O.K., here is a great example of where we as lebertarians can improve. I think that most of us would agree that security (national and local) is a valid use of government power (one of the few valid uses uses of government power, of course). Terrorism is a problem that does need to be solved, at least in part, by the government. So, what should the government do to protect public transportation? Obviously most of us recognize the irrationality of random bag searches. So, what should the government then do to help further the safety of the general populace inthis instance?

|7.26.05 @ 11:57AM|#

I can just see the all the pork flowing to the states already to protect mass transit. Need an armored bus in Enterprise, Alabama to look cool? Just make a request to the federal government and claim that you need it to protect your local mass transit service. :)

|7.26.05 @ 11:57AM|#

Swede-
How about devices or dogs that can detect explosives?

|7.26.05 @ 12:00PM|#

Basically, this policy is an admission of helplessness by the Bloomberg administration. They realize that the subways are vulnerable. They have no viable way of protecting them. Therefore they opt for theater.

|7.26.05 @ 12:03PM|#

Swede,

Disrupt terrorist networks, etc.

|7.26.05 @ 12:04PM|#

Hakluyt-
I'm sure you've heard that Homeland Security dollars are distributed equally amongst the states (I think based on population), rather than concentrated in the places most likely to be terrorist targets. So far as the government's concerned, the amount of money spent to protect landmarks like the pentagon or the Chrysler Building, or targets like nuke plants, should be the same as the money spent protecting the bus station in West Tickhump, North Dakota. Because when the terrorists sit around asking themselves, "Should we blow up the Indian Point Nuclear plant, thus wiping out Manhattan, or should we blow up the abandoned farmhouse in that cornfield in Nebraska?" the government thinks their response is, "Inshallah. It's all the same to me."

|7.26.05 @ 12:06PM|#

Jennifer,

Such would cripple a transit system. Your best bet is to commit resources to finding and disrupting terrorist networks. A policy of interception at likely targets is much less useful.

|7.26.05 @ 12:07PM|#

Jennifer,

Well, that's the government pork machine at action.

|7.26.05 @ 12:08PM|#

Hakluyt-
I'm no technician, but if the government diverted some of the money it spends on important projects like preserving Lawrence Welk's birthplace, and spent it on researching projects that would actually MATTER, I have no doubt they could devise some easy system for detecting explosive particles even in a crowd of people.

|7.26.05 @ 12:14PM|#

Jennifer,

Yes, but that's a future technology not in place right now.

Lawrence Welk has admirers who matter. That's why his birthplace gets the big bucks. Where was Welk born, BTW?

|7.26.05 @ 12:16PM|#

Jim: There is however the chance of catching someone

Doing what? Carrying a joint? Certainly not someone trying to blow up a train. Get serious, the odds of that are essentially zero.

which perhaps means to overcome the 'opportunity costs' we need to hire more police.

Oh wonderful idea Jim. Let's make this worthless program even worse by throwing more money at it.

Looks like Hakluyt is right - this is going to be just another 'homeland security' pork barrel for every city in the US that owns a bus.

|7.26.05 @ 12:18PM|#

As I passed through Union Station in DC yesterday, I noticed that the transit cops were carrying these yellow and black things that looked like little megaphones with crazy antennae on the end. The name on the side was APD 2000. Turns out that they are chemical/radiation detectors. This would seem to be a useful piece of technology that would eliminate the NYC bag searches (assuming they can detect explosives, if not, some one ought to get cracking on that niche, there's money to be made).

jimmy|7.26.05 @ 12:19PM|#

outrageous. and also a great argument in favor of privatizing transportation. let the market provide for security and i bet they would do a better and less intrusive job.

nonetheless stopping/preventing terrorism is still a real issue and we still have to treat this as a war (not a criminal law matter) and deal with it militarily.

"finding and disrupting terrorist networks" is indeed the best response. and none of you will like this, but doing that requires wiretaps, email searches, business record searches, infiltration of mosques and political groups, etc.

|7.26.05 @ 12:24PM|#

Hakluyt--
According to Chthus' post, the technology already exists. And I think Wlk's birthplace was in North Dakota or something. Wherever it is, rest assured your tax dollars are keeping it safe from terrorism. Even if that means New York has to go kaboom.

|7.26.05 @ 12:30PM|#

Since a truck full of explosives could be driven into a highway tunnel and detonated during rush hour, the government should start searching all vehicles before they enter tunnels. Anyone who objects to being searched is free to not drive on any road that has a tunnel/bridge/viaduct.

Since an apartment could be packed with explosives and detonated, the government should start searching all apartments. Anyone who doesn't want to be searched is free to not live in an apartment.

Why, the list just goes on and on.

|7.26.05 @ 12:32PM|#

doing that requires wiretaps, email searches, business record searches, infiltration of mosques and political groups, etc.

Great!

Just present some probable cause and get a warrant first.

|7.26.05 @ 12:32PM|#

What is disgusting to me is that every media outlet is going out of their way to show people volunteering to have the cops paw through their stuff, like they're doing their "civic duty" or something. I think people get the same feeling out of this that they do with other useless feel-good activities like recycling.

|7.26.05 @ 12:33PM|#

Oh, forgot..."if you don't have anything to hide you have nothing to fear blah blah fucking blah".

|7.26.05 @ 12:39PM|#

True Pork Fact: Newark, New Jersey used a half-million dollars of Homeland Security money to buy air-conditioned garbage trucks.

|7.26.05 @ 12:39PM|#

I have a couple of suggestions:

1) Encourage everyone licensed to carry a gun in NYC to carry it on the subway, not concealed. That would make a terrorist think twice; perhaps make them more nervous and therefore more easily identifiable.

2) Have all the cops on trains, walking through the cars, instead of searching people . It's easy to get into the train system without being searched (just go to a station in the outer boros). A cop walking through every train would have a better chance of noticing someone who is nervous. For example, hundreds of thousands of people take the 1 train each day but there are only 15 of them, and even during rush hours there�s only maybe 12 or 13 in service. That�s 12 or 13 cops, walking through the train back and forth. It might be hard on their feet, but I think it would be more productive than bending the 4th amendment.

|7.26.05 @ 12:40PM|#

Doing what? Carrying a joint?

Another possible benefit, drugs fund terrorism.

Certainly not someone trying to blow up a train. Get serious, the odds of that are essentially zero.

Probably, but it at least makes people feel safe.

Oh wonderful idea Jim. Let's make this worthless program even worse by throwing more money at it.

Sometimes more money is what's needed.

|7.26.05 @ 12:40PM|#

A small comment on some fuzzy arithmetic in the article: the authors claim that the chance of detecting an explosive in a terrorists bag is about one in 2.25 million, multiplied "by thousands of searches". This is highly misleading, especially when they draw a comparison to the odds of winning the state lottery. The chance of finding an explosive in a randomly-placed bag is precisely equal to the frequency of the search; i.e., if you search one bag in ten, you have a 10% chance of finding the device. This assumes that the terrorist is dumb enough to throw his bomb in a gym bag when he knows the police will be searching them, as the article mentions.

Of course, this doesn't invalidate their conclusion regarding the futility of random searches---I simply hate to be browbeaten with specious and/or lazy arithmetic, especially when there are already so many good arguments against these violations of privacy.

The most obvious argument is that the terrorists don't have to be terribly picky about their targets. They aren't targeting the trains, they're targeting the people that use the trains. A suicide bomber can do that just as effectively while waiting in line to be searched than he can on the damned train.

Michael

|7.26.05 @ 12:44PM|#

Probably, but it at least makes people feel safe.

It looks like Jane changed her name, once again, to Jim...?

|7.26.05 @ 12:44PM|#

Mr Hardin,

You mention the "street theater" exemption. What is that, exactly?

M.

|7.26.05 @ 12:44PM|#

According to MR:

"It turns out that the quarterly road deaths in London last year averaged 54. 52 people were murdered in the July 7th attacks (and four times more people travel by tube or bus than drive, cycle or walk). Leaving public transport is only going to be safer if the terrorists strike much more often in future."

|7.26.05 @ 12:45PM|#

What is disgusting to me is that every media outlet is going out of their way to show people volunteering to have the cops paw through their stuff, like they're doing their "civic duty"

This is absolutely unreal. Well, if the odds of catching a terrorist were essentially zero to start with, having all the officers tied up with these volunteer do-gooder idiots is a sure way to wipe out even that remote chance. You wouldn't think this is something you should have to explain to them... Sometimes all you can do is try to laugh.

|7.26.05 @ 12:50PM|#

Juanita, Jane, and now Jim...seems as though we have a funny 'authoritarian in our heads' running around! :)

This whole terrorism thing is so stupid. We live in a society where we are all relatively free to move about undetected, or at least unmolested. This includes possible terrorists. If the government was really serious about combating terrorism, it would abandon the drug war and every other frilly, wasteful, bullshit pet program it has going and start tracking down, you know, terrorists. Sending our special forces folks in to eliminate any enclaves it finds of terrorists around the world, infiltrating their ranks, etc, etc. We've got incredible resources, if we used them to actually fight the one thing that's somewhat of a threat to us, I'm sure we could at least make a huge dent in it.

But no, our genius overlords decided to conduct random bag searches in the fucking NYC subways.

Brilliant.

|7.26.05 @ 12:55PM|#

Another possible benefit, drugs fund terrorism.

Bullshit. The "war on drugs" funds terrorism Jim. At the risk of treading on Hakluyt's turf: Go read up on the history of alcohol prohibition and see if you can at least reduce your ignorance of the effects of drug prohibition generally. Takes a little logic, but you can do it.

Of course, the best part of a response like his is that you don't have to take the rest of his claims seriously. Saves a little time! :)

I know, I know, don't feed the trolls.

|7.26.05 @ 1:03PM|#

Juanita, Jane, and now Jim...seems as though we have a funny 'authoritarian in our heads' running around! :)

Well I should hope that someone wouldn't disingenuously post troll-like comments (as opposed to real trolls which are rather fun) simply to get a laugh out of the responses it generates. I mean parody and humor are one thing, but thinking you're clever and snickering behind someone's back seems a bit childish.

|7.26.05 @ 1:11PM|#

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/26/opinion/26tue1.html

This is INSANE.

1) they love random searches, and 2) they feel the police are doing them a favor, and 3) make sure not to profile! NOOOOOO. Wouldnt THAT be stupid? No, let's make it a 'random number' that we search. Never mind the guy with the bulky overcoat in the 110 degree heat, chanting to himself in arabic.

I want to puke.

JG

|7.26.05 @ 1:19PM|#

I want to puke.

Likewise.

fyodor|7.26.05 @ 1:40PM|#

The Drug War gave profiling a bad rap.

|7.26.05 @ 1:42PM|#

So if people are actually volunteering for "random" searches, here's a thought:

The terrorist with the bomb goes to the subway at the same time as several other guys without any sort of contraband. As I understand it the searches mostly happen on the platforms. The decoys keep their distance from the bomber (so that they'll board on a different car if they aren't suicidal), and when they see cops coming they volunteer for searches to keep the cops away from the actual bomber.

It isn't fool-proof, but it reduces the odds that their guy will be noticed and searched.

If they don't want to seem overly eager and set off any suspicions they just need to work on their routine. Maybe act a little fidgety after making eye contact with the cop and see if he'll come over of his own accord. Or make eye contact while walking in his direction, and once the cop seems to notice him ask "Do you need to inspect this?" Or just watch other people who volunteer and see how they do it, so the decoys can blend in.

Ooh, even more sinister, if the cops realize this weakness in their system they might start refusing volunteers. In which case the bomber could immunize himself against searches by volunteering.

And if that doesn't work, they could always find some target other than mass transit. Open cities will always present soft targets. That's just the way it is.

|7.26.05 @ 1:42PM|#

Yet another failing of the drug war...

|7.26.05 @ 1:45PM|#

It looks like Jane changed her name, once again, to Jim...?

Still plenty of other "J" names available:

http://www.babynames.com/Names/J/

|7.26.05 @ 1:47PM|#

If anyone would like to play the numbers game I believe the death toll on American roads is holding steady at around 40,000 a year. Yes, that's forty thousand a year.

Which would be more than 10 times the number killed on 9/11, every single year. And yet nobody pays that the slightest attention, nobody's suggesting we drop-kick the Constitution over it, nobody gives it a second thought as they get in their car and drive around.

Very strange. Some sort of control bias involved, I must assume.

|7.26.05 @ 1:49PM|#

True fact: according to today's New York Times, the government is no longer fighting the "global war on terror;" it is now the "global struggle against violent extremism."

This should make a big difference.

|7.26.05 @ 1:53PM|#

I'm curious: Do cops in Israel search people who volunteer for a search?

(The new name is to show solidarity with Juanity/Jane/Jim, not to mention Jevo.)

|7.26.05 @ 1:56PM|#

make sure not to profile! NOOOOOO. Wouldnt THAT be stupid?

Profiling doesn't work, anyone could be a terorist.

Never mind the guy with the bulky overcoat in the 110 degree heat, chanting to himself in arabic.

It would be wrong to search him, that's profiling.

|7.26.05 @ 1:57PM|#

Never mind the guy with the bulky overcoat in the 110 degree heat, chanting to himself in arabic.

Well to be fair, the article does state that the cops will search suspicious looking people, in addition to the random grandmothers and such.

Let's hope that Bloomberg - who claims to ride the subway every day - gets searched.

|7.26.05 @ 2:04PM|#

Yes, profiling would be less likely to catch a violent extemist than a strictly random search.

|7.26.05 @ 2:13PM|#

Oh Jesus... (speaking of J names who say things you shouldn't believe) ;)~ I think we had more serious discussion on the 7-foot turd thread... who'd of thought... :)

|7.26.05 @ 2:18PM|#

Profiling based on what? I'll grant that profiling based on behavior might have some merits. But demographic profiling seems suspect to me, and not for the reasons usually given.

Say we assume that all terrorists are Muslim. (They aren't, but let's simplify this discussion with that assumption.) OK, what do Muslims look like?

Like Arabs, you say? OK, what do Arabs look like? Some look very Mediterranean, as do some Hispanics. Some look almost like people who are half-black and half white. (No, not exactly, but to an untrained eye like mine there are similarities.)

And not all Muslims, not even all Muslim extremists, are Arab. Some are from South Asia or Central Asia (and yes, people from those areas do look different from Arabs). Some are from the Caucasus or even the Balkans, and look like eastern Europeans. As the Thais are learning, some look south-east Asian.

What's that you say? Limit the searches to men? Um, the Israelis have had some experiences with female suicide bombers.

Leave out old people and kids? What makes you think a terrorist wouldn't hide a bomb on a kid? Even if he isn't planning to kill the kid, he could always conceal the bomb on the kid to get past security.

Well, at least leave out the old people, right? Wrong. Old people with a degree of senility are prime targets for criminals. There are criminals who specialize in talking old people into handing over large sums of money. What makes you think the terrorists would have any compunction about talking that nice little old lady into carrying a small package in her purse for them? Even if they aren't planning on killing her, they might at least have her carry something until they get past security.

Really, given that terrorists could look like almost anybody, or use almost anybody, demographic profiling seems dubious to me. We'll need some approach that's more sophisticated. I don't claim to have the answer, but demographic profiling isn't it.

Mike|7.26.05 @ 2:45PM|#

Random bag checks have two very "essential" purposes - make the sheeple feel safer while acclimating them to invasive searches. Once this becaomes commonplace, courts can find that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in mass transit.

All the more reason not to live and work in the Big City. I've never been searched in order to get into my car.

|7.26.05 @ 2:53PM|#

I've never been searched in order to get into my car.

Not yet, you mean...

|7.26.05 @ 3:36PM|#

A point mentioned in passing in the article (and almost nowhere else I've seen) - what happens to someone who refuses a search? They're "free to walk away"? Yeah, right - walk all the way to Cuba and an indefinite all-expenses-paid stay at beautiful Camp X-ray. Because the first principle of the government when it comes to terrorism is that we're all presumed guilty until we prove our innocence - and unwillingness to show that "proof" is prima facie evidence of guilt. And you can forget about your day in court, old chap - terrorists are "enemy combatants" without any rights under law, foreign or domestic... and a terrorist is whoever the president says is a terrorist.

But remember - Kerry would have been worse!

B.D.|7.26.05 @ 3:52PM|#

The money is a waste. The terrorists have the advantage because once a particular tactic becomes closed or too burdensome, they simply switch tactics, targets, or both. Hence, if you throw your money at one tactic or target, then you are likely wasting your money.

The time, money, and energy are best spent towards A)investigating and rooting out terrorists, B)expanding and preparing post terrorism emergency plans, and C)exploring ways in which policy affects terrorism or not and implementing changes if needed.

|7.26.05 @ 4:14PM|#

They should immediately arrest the volunteers as suspected decoys.

The idiocy of random searches would not bother me except for the fact that they are wasting my tax money on these ineffective methods. Just like my tax money is wasted on the wrong target(Iraq). The real defense against terrorism is infiltration, high-tech spying, and gathering intelligence that is not bent to the whims of the political bosses. They can spend my tax money on that stuff, but I still do not want to give them an open checkbook in the name of security.

New Yorkers - refuse the searches. Send a message that this is the wrong policy.

|7.26.05 @ 4:17PM|#

They should immediately arrest the volunteers as suspected decoys.

That would be funny to watch!

"But I was just trying to do my part to keep the city safe. I thought that we'd be safer if they searched us!"

|7.26.05 @ 4:34PM|#

How is 1:2.25 million only slightly better than 1:175 million?

|7.27.05 @ 3:10AM|#

As the car bombers in Iraq have discovered, all you really need is a nice concentration of people. They could be queuing up for concert tickets or a movie or midnite sales event. Wander into the crowd and go boom. Or, if the bombers weren't so determined to be martyred in the process, open up on the crowd with an automatic weapon.

If the key absolutely, positively, must include destruction of infrastructure along with mass deaths, most marathons have to cross a bridge. Tunnels are good at funneling explosions and being rendered unsafe at the same time. A car bomb in a parking garage at quitting time isn't quite as noteworthy, but it'll do if you are fresh out of bridges and tunnels.

And of course, if you really want to cause sustained terror and chaos, talk to John Mohammad and the Malvo kid. They did an excellent job using random targets of opportunity.

And if PsyOps is your game, don't forget the fake bomb threats (punctuated by the occasional real bomb, to prove you are serious) to keep everybody completely frazzled.

The point is, if death, destruction, disruption, and destabilization are your are your goals, there are an infinite number of ways to achieve them. It's only if you are also interested in drama that the big show is needed.

Now that I think about it, I a lot of these suicidal jihadists seem to be rating drama as highly anything else. Maybe that's their weakness?

|7.27.05 @ 8:29AM|#

Excellent points, Portlander. I've said it before and I'll say it again: If the terrorists really want to disrupt our way of life they'll bomb a few suburban Starbucks locations one busy morning. This will send the message that in a free and open society every place where people gather is a vulnerable point, that you can't stay safe just by avoiding the high-profile targets.

I'm glad they haven't done it, because Mona would probably call for posting cops in every strip mall.

|7.27.05 @ 8:59AM|#

I miss the days when Reason was written by REAL libertarians who knew that habeas corpus and the fourth amendment and this whole "trial-by-jury" nonsense is unnecessary garbage that only benefit terrorists. Remember: when the government decides to rape you, REAL libertarians give them enough KY Jelly to make sure they're comfortable!

|7.27.05 @ 10:09AM|#

Back in the good old days, REAL libertarians knew that high income taxes were the price we pay for strong national defense!

|7.27.05 @ 10:12AM|#

Thoreau-

I'm more of a REAL libertarian than you are. Nyaah nyaah nyaah.

|7.27.05 @ 10:17AM|#

Jennifer, if you were such a REAL libertarian, you would demand Julian Sanchez's head on a platter!

(No offense, Julian, but I remember a time when somebody cited you as an emblem of all that's wrong with Reason and threatened to cancel a subscription over you. I apologize if this upsets you.)

|7.27.05 @ 10:22AM|#

Thoreau-
But isn't Julian dating some chick in the Justice Department? Since Mona now defines "libertarian" as "someone who doesn't object to expanded government powers, and makes no objection when the government subjects them to random searches, and will let the government do any goddam thing it wants so long as it says "Hey, at least we're doing SOMETHING," then I'd have to say that by Mona-standards, Julian is more libertarian than the two of us COMBINED. I mean, we only kiss government ass in a figurative sense--Julian does it literally. And willingly, too, I'll bet. Like a REAL libertarian.

|7.27.05 @ 10:37AM|#

That can be the new party slogan.

LIBERTARIANS: Kissing Government Ass Since Mona Decreed it was Good.