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?

And you ask /.

[Anonymous Coward]

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 /.

You have a right to refuse searches

[wiredog]

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.

As a taxpayer...

[Anonymous Coward]

... who is footing the bill for your salary for you to work at a place that could potentially contain VERY dangerous substances, I insist that you submit to such searches.

If you don't like it, work for the private sector.

Security Checks During "Wartime"

[an_art]

Given the recent anthrax attacks, and our national War posture, your security hassles are not inconsistent with US 20th Century history. You might look at a good history of the Manhattan Project for a picture of just how draconian security measures can get during wartime in the US. As they say, "you haven't seen anything yet!"

look were you work

[Rubbersoul]

I work at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, MD,

While I do not agree with all of the searches and invasions of privacy that have begin in the country, you have to keep in mind were you work.

If I worked at the National Institutes of Heath I would expect to be searched due to the threat of a biological attack and all. If I worked at Burger King or something of the like though I would be a bit more tense if they searched me every time, but that is just my 2cents.

Fourth Amendment rights?

[dinivin]

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

Scientist

[geekoid]

Since you claim to be a scientist, I suppose you're a smart guy. Why would a smart guy like you, ask the /. crowd this question instead of a lawyer?
It would seem to me that you could do yourself a favor(and the /. crowd as well) by talking to a lawyer and then report what you find out to /.

How much leverage do you have? If you are wroking on an important project, and the company thinks your irreplacable, make a demand that they stop searching property.
OTOH if your only a step above bottle washer, go to a lawyer. If you do have the right to refuse, document every activity you do, save every eMail, and be ready to sue when they fire you on some unrelated matter. I hope you do have the right to refuse, and I hope to hell you do refuse and stand your ground. If you do not have the right to refuse, use your intellegnce to figure out how you can get a law passed that makes it illegal for a company to search personal bags, even if an employee says its ok. Or at the very least, be forced to show probable cause.
I'm the guy that won't let people at the exit of stores search my purchase, and I refuse to stop if some stores alarm system goes off when I happen to be leaving. Personally I am very tired of having to prove my innocense, and I'm not stopping just becuaes soe faulty piece of hardware beeps and whirs at me.

Yes

[Syberghost]

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.

What's wrong with you?

[www.sorehands.com]

What's wrong with you? Are you a terrrorist/thief/hacker? Why would object if you have nothing to hide? It's for your own protection!

Does that all sound familiar? When you didn't object to being x-rayed and having your bags searched at the airport, or going into city hall to pay a parking ticket, or being searched by the Fry's door nazis...You Asked for this! You allowed your freedom to be taken a little bit at a time for an illusion of security. Why are you complaining now? This is how we lose our rights, a little at a time.

[/rant]

Re:Searches

[geekoid]

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.

Why does Everything require a Lawyer?

[Anonymous Coward]

Some posters seem to act as if you need a lawyer to scratch your own ass.

This is unnecessary: All he has to to is talk to his fellow employees- If enough of them agree that the searches are unreasonable them they can have a strike. (or a Work to Win strike if a normal one is too risky)

And even if noone else cares about it- then he should start hunting for a better job- at a place with a no body cavity policy. Once his current employer loses enough scientists, theyll fix their problems.

Re:Right...

[pe1rxq]

So we should just abandon privacy and freedom completly.
I am sure you would feel really comfortable in your police state knowing that your 'goverment' (lets also get rid of democracy in case one of those terorists gets elected....) controls your every move.

Freedom has risks, deal with that.

I think its ironic that after what many people call an atack on 'the free/democratic/western world' the first thing we do is get rid of the things it stood for.
Looks like the attacks were successfull afterall...

Jeroen

I'm hoping it's just where you work.

[ChelleyBean]

Where you are working probably has a huge impact on the level of security being exercised. I hope airports look at it and consider putting their employees through tighter security instead of just their passengers. The car search seems a bit over the top, especially if they've searched your person upon leaving the building. If they have guards on the parking lots themselves then the most they should have to do is a light search upon entering the property.

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.

You have no rights at a work!!!

[digitalamish]

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

There is an answer

[debrain]

This answer is not for everyone. Leave your draconian country while you can. Few countries permit such embarassing yet incredibly futile actions. Much less condone them. Look to Amnesty International for a list of countries with human rights violations and campaigns they have engaged in; their largest human rights campaign was directed against the US rights violations.

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.

Your choice

[jathos]

You work for the federal government, in *their* lab, not yours. I live just a few miles away from NIH, and I personally am quite glad that they are instituting tough security measures.

If you worked for a corporation, you would most likely be searched in case you were trying to steal intellectual property. But in this case, you work for a government *at war*, and the sooner you realize that, the better off you'll be. Downtown Washington DC is just a 10 minute drive from NIH, and people are dying from anthrax in DC. You being searched is a small price to pay for the increased security of my loved ones.

Make it easier on yourself and them

[jnik]

First off, I think the car search is a little ridiculous and you should probably speak briefly with your superior about it. Heck, just talk to your boss and explain that you understand the need for increased security, but you'd prefer it be a little less in-your-face.

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.

similar experience in DC area

[ragnar]

I work for a federal agency [dol.gov] and my bags are inspected every day I come to work. I don't like it, but I suspect this is the sort of treatment people have undergone at other more sensitive offices like the Pentagon, CIA and FBI for years. Like it or not, heightened security has come to many of our lives in the DC area.

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.

Unresaonable Search?

[dtrent]

You don't have a *right* to work in your lab, it's something your employer allows you to do, with their own conditions.

Quit if you don't like it, but don't escalate your situation to an *unreasonable search*, that's not what it is.

Rant

[bckspc]

I work in the Empire State Building.. now the tallest building in New York. Every day I have to walk through metal detectors, empty my pockets of cellphone, PDA and keys, put my bag through an x-ray machine, open my laptop and show security it's a real working laptop.

Like the poster, at first I didn't mind, but after weeks and weeks of this it's become a major hassle. If I want to leave the building for any reason at all I still have to wait in line to be hassled by the security goons. And now they're letting tourists back in to visit the observatory at the top. How long must we endure this daily harrassment? Until we've stopped bombing Afghanistan?

Oh, and my favorite are the posters in the lobby that say 'no knives or cutting instruments of any length are permitted on the premises.' So.... we don't try and hijack the building and fly it to DC?

Re:Hmm..

[wafath]

And a security guard can identify an anthrax sample how?

The searches aren't designed to find such things. The seaches are designed to offer the illusion of security, so the the boss of NIH can say to his boss "I done real good, massah."

It would take very long, very invasive, and very personal searches to top anything dangerous from getting out. But the vast majority of NIH deals with other things. It is, after all, a fully functional hospital.

W

american lies

[any1]

You think the american people are the only ones that gave up our rights a little at a time, the terrorists that attacked took our freedom/rights on sept. 11th. the best one is the people that keep complaining about the excessive searching are the first ones to complain about the fact that most of those terrorists on the 11th didn't even belong in this country at the time. My personal thoughts, this country should be on lock down, we are fighting a war both abroad and at home, which should put us all on military lock down. I, as an american who lives in NYC, feel that I am willing to comply with the american government and any searching party, with reason of course, to any delay or search of my belongings. These attacks might have been done by foreign terrorists, but the last american terrorist attack was done by one of our own, MCVEIGH. Until the smoke clears, the safety is 99% ensured, we should all just put up w/ this and maybe even thank those that are doing such a good job trying to prevent the next terrorist in succeeding. Just my 2cents, you can either take it or toss em, the choice is yours.

The US Constitution...

[Ellen Ripley]

... it's not perfect, but it's better than what we have now.

wiredog said:

You have a right to refuse searches... 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.

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

Rights

[Stultsinator]

First of all, regardless of whether or not you believe there are "universal" Rights, every person has boundaries that they want to protect. If you are the only person who objects to being searched then I'd say that you are out of place there and look for a more satisfying job. However, some would say, along the same lines as equal opportunity arguments, that you should have a right to work there and that everyone should protect that right.

So I guess the first thing you should do is decide whether or not you like working there and if you would want to take action to continue doing so. If you decide that you want to stay and change the policy, find out which of your co-workers agree with you. At the end of that exercise you'll have a pretty good idea what sort of force you can put behind change (either you have a lot of people who agree with you or you have a choice few who have political power.) Also keep in mind who opposes you.

Then act.

Re:Hmm..

[Jburkholder]

>you should be able to refuse being searched

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 /. made the last one appear as AC)

Re:The Constitution

[Bighund]

The searches do not violate the 4th Amendment because the search is not being conducted by law enforcement. Your reasoning that "the only reason to search is to find something so as to prosecute in a court of law" would nullify EVERY single search by any person or entity, whether law enforcement or not, if that person then turned over any illegal/suspicious substance to the police, who then chose to prosecute based upon some fact or knowledge gained during the search. Further, the 4th Amendment only protects against "unreasonable" searches.

I agree that we must be very, very careful not to lose our freedoms in the rush to discover or prevent future plots. There is a fine line between paranois and prudence in this field and most public officials tend to rather quickly gravitate toward over-zealousness, and give our civil liberties short-shrift.

Re:Apparently the message hasn't gotten out...

[ethereal]

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.

Unreasonable seaches...

[chinton]

When defining the term unreasonable has to be defined based on where you work. If you work at 7-Eleven the most harmful thing you could smuggle out would be, say a twinkie. Nasty as it may be, I don't think a twinkie dust poses a serious health risk. Working at the NIH, however, what could you smuggle out? Anthrax, probably. Smallpox, probably. The Plague, probably. All things more deadly than the afformentioned twinkie.

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.

Re:Hmm..

[Coz]

A fully functional hospital - which means it has fully functional narcotics, fully functional labs where various things are grown, fully functional medical records... there are lots of things that a quick check of a person's bags will prevent from escaping. Like a big sealed envelope full of confidential medical records, or a few dozen vials of morphine, or a couple of pounds of powdered unicorn horn... c'mon, the fact of the search is itself a powerful disincentive. A security guard may not be able to identify an anthrax sample, but he/she/it has been briefed on who to call to check.

Look around, Chico

[fobbman]

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.

Re:there's one way to fight this...

[bwt]

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.

This isn't about the Constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

I am continually amazed by /.'ers who don't understand the basic concept that the first ten amendments are a set of limitations on the scope of GOVERNMENT. If I tell you to shut up, it in no way affects your first amendment rights, because I'm not part of the government. If the local paper refuses to print your letter to the editor- tough shit- they don't have to. The first amendment simply says that the government cannot keep the paper from printing your letter, or force them to print it.

Likewise, your place of work may or may not be part of the government. If it is, then you might possibly be in luck. Otherwise, you're most likely screwed. In either case, you need to talk to a lawyer.

The point I wanted to make is this: unless they are somehow employed by the government, a private entity cannot, by definition, infringe on your Constitutional rights. Read the amendments sometime, you might like them.

Re:Searches

[opkool]

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.

A few thoughts

[catseye_95051]

(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.

The 4th ammendment does not apply

[gelfling]

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.

Re:Apparently the message hasn't gotten out...

[mystery_bowler]

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.

Checks... and balances

[igaborf]

"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?"

Of course, they could just eliminate the checking altogether to protect your "rights." But then that $250 will become about $300 because they'll have to raise their prices to cover the increase in undetected shoplifting. What's that you say? So let them do less invasive security? You mean like hidden cameras watching your every move, as most department stores have?

But then, maybe you're willing to pay the extra cash to subsidize theft in order to avoid the trauma of having your receipt checked. Trouble is, most people aren't that well heeled. They'll opt for the competition -- the one that still has receipt checking and consequently lower prices, and your no-recipt-checking store won't be around for long. Retail is a low-margin business.

"Tough," you say, "if their prices go up I'll just shop somewhere else." But of course, that somewhere else faces the same problems as Fry's. (Actually, is there anyplace else like Fry's?)

So, you see, all the alternatives are as bad or worse. I suggest an alternate plan. Next time, hand your receipt to the checker and say, "How 'bout those Giants?" (Okay, 'Niners.) Have a conversation with him. Discover that he's a human being, too. In short, stop acting like such an insufferable prig.

kiss your civil liberties goodbye

[Wansu]

Your civil liberties are going the way of the dinosaur. That's what is shaking out from the 9/11 events and the ongoing Anthrax episodes. As a CEO recently said about privicy, "Get over it." You can count on more of this cavity search mentality because law enforcement basically has a blank check to do as they please.

But are they going to check out people entering the US more thoroughly? Are they going to scrutinize the immigration non-policy we have today? Are we going to continue to subsidize big business's insatiable appetite for cheap labor by increasing the already excessive H1-B quota? So far, I've heard little discussion of it.

If native Americans are to lose civil liberties then it's only fair that the immigrants who aspire to citizenship bear some of the burden too.

Screwed up Priorities

[Chris Y Taylor]

"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.

Re:Yes

[Syberghost]

So the price of liberty is poverty? Great values system buddy.

How does my value system enter into a decision made 225 years ago by a bunch of guys to whom I'm not even related?

However, yes, sometimes the price of liberty is poverty. Sometimes it's even death. Didn't you learn this stuff in Civics in grade school?

You have the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. You do NOT have the right to be employed by any particular employer. Indeed, if you did, that would necessarily be a heavy restriction of that employer's right to have anybody working for him he wants, or to not have them. Your rights aren't any more important than his.

After all, they can fire you for exercising your free speech, can't they? Or your freedom of the press?

It should come as no shock in a discussion of reducing liberty to enhance security that the converse is also true.

Re:Why does Everything require a Lawyer?

[flink]

I think the scenario they want to avoid is this:

They have a layoff, some one gets fired, has a shitty meeting, whatever. He snaps, and goes stalking office to office pumping round after round into his coworkers...(sorry).

Anyway, the thinking is probably that if some one has to drive home, get a gun, and come back, they're more likely to calm down first and go blow off steam at the shooting range rather than the office.

I think most gun owners are perfectly responsible. At least the ones I know are. I'm just saying it's not too dificult to imagine the companies' position.

Re:And you ask /.

[Bob Uhl]

I find that quite remarkable: here is a country where the government would probably face an armed revolution if it were to attempt to take away Gun Rights...

Hah--it's been going on since the after the Civil War, especially since the 1920s. No revolutions yet.

My god! What happened to America?

The Founders died. The revolutionaries died. Americans became like other people--small-minded and willing to compromise. This happened very early on--remember that even in the beginnings we had such atrocities as the Alien & Sedition Acts. The War Between the States was the death-blow for federalism and freedom, the beginning of the Imperial Presidency and the all-powerful national government.

It's not the last twenty years--it's the last 150 years. We, like the Europeans before us, are willing to trade freedom for safety. What is unfortunate is that there is no New World for those of us who treasure our liberty to escape to--no safe haven from the ravages of our rapacious rulers.

The sad fact of the matter is that most people don't care about their liberties. They don't want to own a weapon, they don't want to copy music, they don't want to do drugs. They're willing to let the police protect them (maybe, if they get around to it, perhaps); they're willing to buy 14 copies of the same song; they're content to drink themselves into oblivion rather than inject or toke their way there. They don't want to use Free Software; they're willing to use the software that came `free' with their computer.

Everyone cares when he realises that his liberties are endangered. No-one cares when others' are endangered, or when liberties he doesn't use are endangered. Most people are sheep, with a very simple, straightforward and incorrect view of right and wrong.

Is there hope? Nope, not really. C'est la vie.

Do nothing if you want to lose your rights

[njdj]

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?

Of course you have; you shouldn't need a lawyer to tell you that. The owner of a building can refuse to admit you if you refuse to be searched before entering it. But by allowing yourself to be searched on the way to your car, you're giving up your own rights and helping to diminish everyone else's.

Rights are not something that are handed out for free. If you want them, you have to defend them. This will cause you trouble and inconvenience. Read about how the signatories of the Declaration of Independence fared.

Re:Apparently the message hasn't gotten out...

[raresilk]

Hear hear. Let's not forget that dead men have no rights at all. Before our Constitution, Bill of Rights, democratically elected republican government, and historical tradition of liberty could even come into existence, it was first imperative for our nation to accomplish a critically important task:

Win the war against the British, who were actively in the process of slaughtering our liberty-inclined ancestors.

Likewise, we are now faced with an enemy who so reviles our nation that he has ordered his followers to murder all Americans, wherever they are found. (don't believe me? read the fatwa.) If we fail to make it our first and foremost priority to win the war against Osama Bin Laden, and prevent his followers from continuing to murder us en masse, we will not be around to exercise the freedoms we so value. Do you think our grandkids will thank us for whining over bag searches at NIH during a goddamn war?!? No, they won't, because they'll be corpses too.

I'm sorry, this is trollish language, but I can't restrain myself. If the original poster of this thread is representative of those working for our government and entrusted with keeping our nation safe, then there is no life or future ahead of us. The USA and the world will be passively handed over to the military dictatorship of Osama-stan by the spoilt, naive, soft weaklings in our government service, who would sooner have vials of Ebola walking out of the NIH, and into the hands of the nation's declared enemies who intend to use them to kill us all, rather than lose 3 minutes off their precious lunch break standing in an inspection line.

We are at war. Get real. The people searching you are trying to save lives. The NIH itself exists for the purpose of trying to save lives. If you don't care about saving lives, work somewhere else. There is nothing unreasonable, invasive or unconstitutional about the searches you've reported, which are obviously directed at the public's safety as well as yours.

* * *

Re:I would put it more strongly...

[Peaker]

As an Israeli, I know that this should be moderated insightful, and not funny.

Re:Odd advice, but oddly applicable

[Anonymous Coward]

A lightbulb appears over the heads of drug smugglers that read /.

Am I the only drug smuggler reading this site?