The Snooper's Trifecta

I've tried to shake this thought for several days, to no avail. Hope it is wildly paranoid, but here it goes:

Suppose the U.S. does move to a more regional terror-alert system, either de facto or de jure, primarily in recognition of the fact that a nation-wide alert is just too costly in both monetary and manpower terms. Now, couple that shift with the newly found constitutionality of police roadblocks undertaken for informational purposes, and toss in the domestic passport and travel surveillance system that is CAPPS II.

Say we go back to an orange alert based on a threat to the power grid in Texas. Texas cops can then make informational stops looking for terrorists, right? And there is no legal protection stopping the results of these little interrogations from making their way into the great CAPPS II database, is there? There might some technical limitations for now, but nothing insurmountable.

This is all pretty much nuts, right?

Comments

[junyo]

Ashcroft: Uh huh, uh huh, yeah baby... Now say that part about "no legal protection" again, slowly... Uh huh, Oh God, yeah, uh huh, yeah, ugghhh!!!...

[lights cigarette]

[Mooserack]

To think that there are some assholes in this forum are actually for these measures because they think this will make them safer. Not realizing that actually picking up a map and a history book would protect them even more. Asshats. They make me sick. SICK. BARF. Oh Look. Orange barf. Fucking PATRIOT Act. Sieg Um Jeden Preis. The Innocent Have Nothing To Fear.
mooserack

[Dan]

The recent SCOTUS ruling held that it was legal for the police to set up roadblocks to gather information for help investigating a crime. It's unclear whether "we think something might happen somewhere in Texas" would pass the test for "investigating a crime" or not. It's also pretty much a given that the police wouldn't use that technique widely, since it isn't generally a useful way of gathering information. Look at the police chief's perspective: if a building gets blown up in Dallas, he's going to have to explain why he thought "interrogating SUV-driving soccer moms on the freeway" was the best prevention technique he could have used.

In any case, if they DID use the roadblock tactic, it certainly seems likely that the information would end up in the CAPPS II database. I'm not sure what you mean by "nuts", though.

[Stephen Fetchet]

Um, suppose you have a government. Would it be too much of a stretch, from that to concentration camps or a gulag-driven genocide of 100,000 people?

No, of course not. Just look at Germany - they had a government. Just look at the U.S. - it's a miracle I'm not writing this from Guantanamo. Hell, I probably am, in some form of a sting operation.

Some assholes in this forum might actually think you would want or need government in any form. But as the Danish crypto-anarchist / marijuana squatter commune experiment of '83 proved, it just isn't necessary, and anybody who thinks otherwise is just a fascist. If they deny it, it proves that they are one of these fascist conspirators. Scum bags. Turd rollers. Knuckle fuckers. They make me vomit my spine out my nose. Frequently.

[david]

In the words of Sergeant Hulka: Lighten up, Francis!

[B]

Of course you're being paranoid. After all, Justice Breyer confidently predicted that police would not make widespread use of "informational" checkpoints, given the costs in money, manpower, and hassle to constituents (citing studies on use of drunk driving checkpoints). What's more, the Court thought it highly unlikely that police would ask questions designed to ferret out other crimes during the "limited" informational checkpoint. So that's that.

Seriously, though, you're hypothetical is not far-fetched at all. I suspect that the Court would find such checkpoints lawful. Dan makes a good point that Lidster may be limited to situations where police are investigating a past, known crime rather than an anticipated crime. After all, the Court had to read Edmond pretty damn narrowly to accomodate its holding in Lidster; therefore, Lidster might also be read narrowly. However, given that certain types of checkpoints are already permissible even when police don't know if a crime has been committed (immigration, drunk-driving), it wouldn't be a stretch to say the "anti-terrorism" checkpoint would also be permissible. Immigration checkpoints are allowed even though the vast majority of people passing through them are legally present in the U.S., because of the magnitude of illegal immigration. If immigration checkpoints of limited efficacy are permissible, then wouldn't a checkpoint designed to interdict a possible terrorist attack (which presents a far greater danger than illegal immigration) be permissble, as well? Especially if the instrusion on motorists is "minor" as it was in Lidster?

Dan makes another good point (echoing Justice Breyer's prediction in Lidster) that "anti-terrorism" checkpoints probably wouldn't be very effective at gathering information. At the same time, they might alienate lots of people. Of course, that's only true if the real purpose of the checkpoint is information gathering. Maybe the cops are just setting up a pretextual informational checkpoint to give them cover for what is really a drug interdiction checkpoint.

Didn't Judge Posner pose a hypothetical along these lines in the Seventh Circuit's opinion in Edmond?

[notJoe]

Stephen Fetchet,

Take deep breaths. *Deep* breaths. Now, isn't that better?

[david]

It's MEDDLING kids, not "nosey" kids.

[J. Ashcroft]

Aw shucks! You figured me out! And I would have gotten away with it too if not for you nosey kids and that dumb dog!

[Lane]

Nuts? No. A little paranoid? Yes. But a little paranoia is a good thing. We now have the technology to keep every contact with gov't., minor or major, on your permanent record card and that which can be done, will be.

We've seen that prohibitions on directly gathering personal info by gov't agencies haven't stopped them from simply purchasing such. So as the walls of incompatible "intel" systems fall we venture farther into the panopticon and our own surveillance society. And as CAPPS 2 will be happy to deny your passage by air, greater TSA involvement with AMTRAK and the Dingy Dog may well reduce you to hitchhiking. But then, that's likely at least a misdemeanor in each of the 50 states.

Given various sting scenarios, your belief that "informational" stops will be used as fishing expeditions is appropriate.

He he, gotcha

[Lane]

Nuts? No. A little paranoid? Yes. But a little paranoia is a good thing. We now have the technology to keep every contact with gov't., minor or major, on your permanent record card and that which can be done, will be.

We've seen that prohibitions on directly gathering personal info by gov't agencies haven't stopped them from simply purchasing such. So as the walls of incompatible "intel" systems fall we venture farther into the panopticon and our own surveillance society. And as CAPPS 2 will be happy to deny your passage by air, greater TSA involvement with AMTRAK and the Dingy Dog may well reduce you to hitchhiking. But then, that's likely at least a misdemeanor in each of the 50 states.

Given various sting scenarios, your belief that "informational" stops will be used as fishing expeditions is appropriate.

He he, gotcha

[joe]

I am a dickus