New at Reason

Nick Gillespie | December 26, 2005

As the National Security Administration readies its plan to eavesdrop on every burp, hiccup, and fart in these United States, Julian Sanchez asks whether "a dubious dog-sniff ruling could leave us all on a very short leash."

Comments

|12.26.05 @ 5:32PM|#

I think the math in JS's article needs double-checking...

|12.26.05 @ 5:49PM|#

Sorry, I initially wrote "out of 10,000" where I meant "out of a million" -- it's been corrected.

|12.26.05 @ 5:51PM|#

Are they monitoring content, or merely traffic?

|12.26.05 @ 6:47PM|#

We don't know. As I say, we know they're monitoring traffic, and it's at least been reported that they have the capability to filter content. But what they're actually doing isn't clear.

|12.26.05 @ 8:08PM|#

I just wrapped my phone in tin foil.

I should be all set.

t. rev|12.26.05 @ 10:03PM|#

More people need to be aware of Bayes' rule and its political implications. Thank you for this article.

|12.26.05 @ 10:25PM|#

A couple of weeks ago our bigass, plastic trashcan was hijacked the night before garbage pick-up, when it was engorged with our personal info.
I have an underaged Japanese maiden corresponding intensely with me from Communist China. Everyone knows I'm an anarchistic, atheistic nudist with halitosis. Everyone knows I hang here on H&R occasionally. Everyone knows I'm agitating to change the name of my fair city to Sinincincinnati. I'm a stringer for the WhistleBlower. I marched for peace with the subersive Rev. "Mac" McCrackin, who was arrested for trying to climb the wrought iron fence surrounding the White House, but he's passed already.
I've challenged the Chief of Police to legalize all drugs.
All my other habits are passable?
Cost me about 25 dollars at WalMart to get a replacement trashcan.
Am I paranoid, or are they just out to recycle my discarded bottles of alkeehol?
(Oh yeah, I don't voluntarily recycle either.)

Full disclosure/ In vino veritas.

|12.26.05 @ 10:57PM|#

"the "border search" exception to the Fourth Amendment, which permits warrantless searches of persons and parcels as they exit or leave the territorial United States, primarily for the purpose of keeping out contraband."

How in hell does searching people as they LEAVE keep anything out of the country?! Sounds to me like they were more worried about preventing contraband from leaving....contraband as in large sums of cash or gold.

Ron Hardin|12.27.05 @ 7:08AM|#

Probably everything has to be brought up to date technology-wise.

Allow gathering everything, and restrict what can be looked for in it.

The way it works in fact is probably that the 100 most probable open leads turned up by the machines get the manpower assigned to it; that is, it's a way of occupying the resources you have most fruitfully, which is a good thing.

What you want to control is what they compute the probability of, eg. not drugs but terrorism.

You can do this indirectly by giving them only enough manpower to check out the terrorism leads. Idle manpower leads to abuse.

|12.27.05 @ 9:07AM|#

I have a problem with Sniffy the Wonder Dog being the basis for probable cause to perform a search. How do I cross examine the dog?

Instead I have the word of the officer stating something along the lines of "if he licks his butt, it means he smells __________" (fill in the blank.) I presume Sniffy smells dog butt, which does not even reach the level of suspicion, much less probable cause in my book.

|12.27.05 @ 10:29AM|#

wonder if wrapping the house in an inch thick layer of lead would prevent a false positive..

i guess that depends on whether searches follow real, honest to goodness false positives, or whether they follow "false positives" wink wink..[cue self-written, "delayed notification search warrant" or 4 a.m. raid]

god it must be a little nervewracking being an arab-american with a taste for ganja..

|12.27.05 @ 2:16PM|#

"god it must be a little nervewracking being an arab-american with a taste for ganja."

Not really. Well, ok maybe a little.

|12.27.05 @ 3:39PM|#

Adam:
...or whether they follow "false positives" wink wink..[cue self-written, "delayed notification search warrant" or 4 a.m. raid]

If I am raided I will fight. I know I have done nothing to warrant an attack from anyone. Even if the raider is the government. If I am attacked, I will fight back. I figure even if I only manage to get one of the assailants, that is one less for someone else to deal with.