These millimeter wave devices aren't being installed in a secret plot to eliminate everyone's civil rights. They're being installed because regulators sincerely believe that they represent a reasonable compromise between privacy (which is actually not one of your ironclad civil liberties) and safety.
Airport security is probably a bad joke. But acting and talking as if that's a foregone conclusion --- or worse, that it's part of some malignant scheme --- is counterproductive. It marginalizes everyone with a more reasonable or nuanced perspective about this issue.
Take off the "Buck Fush" t-shirt and be civil to the TSA guy. Say "I'm going to opt out of the body scanner". If enough people do, it'll get easier for everyone to avoid the electronic strip search machine.
> These millimeter wave devices aren't being installed in a secret plot to eliminate everyone's civil rights.
There likely is no plot to eliminate civil rights, however, devices like these erode privacy, increase distrust in government, and, worse, increase the time and comfort it takes to get from point A to point B.
From the late 80s to today we've gone from a time when only metal detectors were required to get back to a gate, to requiring tickets (making it more inconvenient and less safe for small children to fly alone), removing clothing in public view (shoes, belts, outer garments), unpacking/packing luggage in public view, potentially being patted down, heavily paramilitary patrolling gateways, detainment for arbitrary reasons, etc.
I worry more about running into a TSA agent in a bad mood (potentially ruining my day) than just about anything else when traveling.
Re: Children - at least the TSA has some clue about this:
"...arrangements may be made for non-travelers to accompany children. Contact your airline to make arrangements."
Eliminating civil rights isn't the goal; like much of the evil in the world, it will be a side-effect of people who thought they were doing the right thing.
Thomas speaks much sense here. Relatedly, that is exactly the attitude you should take with cops who try to ask you questions or seize your papers or effects. "I respectfully decline. If you are not arresting me, I am leaving; if you do not have a search warrant, leave my property expeditiously. Have a nice day."
There are a number of charges that you can be arrested for at the sole discretion of the officer. I've heard exchanges like:
officer: Don't go anywhere
friend: Am I under arrest?
officer: No, but don't go anywhere.
friend: If I'm not under arrest, then I'm leaving.
officer: If you leave, I *will* arrest you with impeding an investigation / obstruction of justice
(That exchange followed from someone not involved in a protest, who was filming police officers trying to contain a protest. They tried to fine her friend $400 for littering (i.e. a candy wrapper that was already on the ground) or something equally ridiculous when you consider the amount of time (and tax-payer money) that they wasted harassing her and her friends.)
Also, in a number of jurisdictions, you can be arrested for being 'drunk and disorderly' with only the officer's word that you were actually drunk and/or causing a scene.
Keep in mind, that it doesn't matter much whether or not the charges stick. The police have successfully harassed you if you have to spend the night (or weekend) in prison before you are able to get out (and/or get the charges dismissed).
{update} Some corrections. Also, the 'investigation' that was being impeded was a $400 fine for littering a candy wrapper (ignoring whether or not the candy wrapper was actually littered).
Your first example is naive. The police cannot arrest you absent an actual crime, but they can detain you for a "reasonable" amount of time; if you simply walk away from an officer, you are in fact impeding an investigation. There is a clear difference between an arrest and being "detained": during an arrest, the police can search you and your vehicle, put you in restraints, and drive you away to a police station.
That there are subjective offenses you can be arrested for and that the police could abuse strikes me as a simple fact of life. You can also file complaints, (in most jurisdictions) record the abuse with your camera phone, and (in crazy cases) sue.
In my example, the people were 'detained' for a few hours, during which they were not asked any questions at all. They just had to sit around at the police station twiddling their thumbs. In my mind, this just police intimidation. Some police officer didn't like them or what they were doing, so they decided to harass them. I don't think that, as a society, we should just accept this as a fact of life. By doing so, we give the police carte blanche to continue doing so, and to attempt to push the envelope even further.
If a cop ever pulls that on you, lawyer up instantly. If you're not free to leave, you're under arrest, regardless of what state they say you are in, whether they have mirandized you, etc.
Again, you can be "not free to leave" for a whole hour on the side of the street and have a judge call that a "reasonable" period to detain you for questioning. You're not under arrest while that's occurring. A bunch of other processes get set in motion once you're arrested, all of them bad.
Probably don't overreact if you hear a cop say "stop, get back over here!" or "no, you may not leave until I get to the bottom of this!"; they're legally authorized to do that pretty much on a whim.
If you've been handcuffed or transported or confined in a police station, you're under arrest, and yes, demand a lawyer.
Can you say a bit more about "lawyering up"? I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean specifically to call a lawyer, or imply that you have one... etc. Thanks.
"They're being installed because regulators sincerely believe that they represent a reasonable compromise between privacy (which is actually not one of your ironclad civil liberties) and safety."
No, they're being installed for profit. They have nothing to do with civil rights and even less to do with security -- I highly doubt that anyone involved actually cares about either.
What they do care about is milking money from the government by taking advantage of the asinine government contracting and acquisitions processes -- and most likely also the fact that fattening the right wallets greases the right wheels to make things very profitable for them.
Having had the experience of observing the frontiers of my civil rights while being searched on the train from Zurich to Rome, I find this notion that things are better in Europe amusing. From what I can tell, the situation Americans find themselves in at the TSA checkpoints is identical to the situation all Europeans find themselves in everywhere.
You realize that (contrary to popular opinion) Americans don't even need to carry ID, right?
Flying between Schengen countries, 99% of the time I have my bag X-Rayed and my ID checked by airline staff on check-in, and that's it. At no point do I even have contact with a government official.
Land border crossings are even more of a non-event, you have to pay attention or you might miss them. In some countries you can indeed be IDd on the spot though. Not that it's ever happened to me (except by traffic police checking my license).
Entering or leaving the Schengen area is a slightly different story - you pass through emigration/immigration, plus some countries like the UK are slightly more draconian about air travel "security" and have body scanners. I assume your trip was before Switzerland's entry to the Schengen zone in December 2008?
As a German I need to have an ID card, but do not need to carry it with me. The same is true for many other EU states.
Civil liberties are apparently in decline everywhere, but I would argue that the EU is somewhat better than the US in that regard and that the actual abuse of laws is better in the EU.
I think you are slightly overacting. It could be that you as a non-EU-citizen were subjected to harsher standards. May I remind you that the US isn't that nice to non-citizens?
* Can the state police demand that you open a bag for inspection on a train?
* Can you be detained at length (for instance, removed to a police station) if you're asked to identify yourself and don't have documentation?
* Are the police under any circumstances permitted to randomly stop and search cars?
* Can the police check your pockets during a pat-down search for weapons?
Each of these is something for which US jurisprudence has issued decisive and binding decisions (no, absent probable cause they can document and justify on the stand, they can't open your bag; no, unless they arrest you for an actual crime, they can't take you to a police station; no, under most circumstances the police can't even pull you over unless you've committed a "primary" offense, and cannot absent probable cause of an actual crime search your car; no, the police in the US can't demand to see the contents of your pockets).
Incidentally, you have the same protection under the 4th Amendment as a German citizen in the US as I do as someone born in Chicago. I assume that's true vice-versa in Germany as well.
The bag issue is what got me; Swiss police rifled through my bag. I was not the only person in the train car that happened to, so I'm doubting I was simply selected for it as a noncitizen --- not that that should matter.
In Schengen, you might have to have your identity determined by the police at the police station, so yeah, you can be detained for that.
Searches, in Germany, generally demand cause. I have no idea what laws govern searches in Switzerland.
The part with citizens vs non-citizens was mainly about borders. The US is known to be incredibly mean to non-citizens, going so far as to require a visum for transit, whereas Schengen only requires a transit visum for citizens of a small number of states.
It seems strange that Swiss police did a random search. Anyway, it seems that the US police also does random searches—at train stations for example.
Already the case in the UK as far as I know. Not everyone is required to go through them, and not all airports have them, but if you're one of the "lucky" ones and you refuse, you don't fly.
Can't seem to find the article from some months ago to back this up, unfortunately.
I don't fly from Heathrow airport for this reason. As far as I'm concerned, I do have something to hide: the intimate details of my body are not for the amusement or abuse of random "security" staff. If you don't like that point of view, f@#% off: we voted out the government who tried to turn us into a fear-driven police state, and now we are laughing at all the former ministers when they bleat about how much the world will end when the new government starts undoing all the abusive laws and regulations that the old one imposed.
Is there a list of airports (terminals?) where these scanners are being used? I visit family in the UK a couple of times a year, usually by plane, but this is one of the reasons we're taking the car & ferry on the upcoming trip. And yeah, I strongly hope the Tory & LibDem government make good on their civil liberty promises and then some.
I sympathise with your predicament. However, from my outsider's point of view, the US political system is something of a different beast to those here in Europe: it now appears to be systemically corrupt, representing special interests rather than those of the common citizen and with well-established feedback loops that make the unfortunate bias stronger with every election.
Consequently, I'm not sure elections in the US really mean very much at the moment. In the grand scheme of things, the two big political parties are closely aligned on most issues. Those distinctions that do exist between them are minor disagreements, which get dramatically exaggerated in election propaganda, rather than differences of any real substance.
I hope that here in the UK, where we have never quite fallen into the trap of having only two big political parties, we have more chance of seeing real improvement. It helps that we didn't give government to any single party at the last general election, for the first time in many years. That must have been a nasty wake-up call for those old-school Conservatives who had arrogantly assumed that they were somehow entitled to form the next government just because Labour were not going to. (Labour, does anybody remember them? No? Good. :-))
Fortunately, the principles of restoring civil liberties and rolling back the nanny/surveillance state are among the major issues on which the two coalition partners now in government strongly agreed anyway, and where there are politicians from both parties in the coalition with a long track record of criticising the sorts of measures we are talking about in this discussion. They need this sort of issue of common interest in order to build a successful and lasting coalition, and it's also a politically popular stance: FUD about terrorism threats doesn't really cut it with the average voter here any more, partly because people's minds are more focussed on basics like getting/keeping a job and paying the rent/mortgage, and partly just because you can only keep a population accepting of draconian laws for so long when there is no serious bad stuff happening to convince them to Be Afraid.
In short, I like to think that we are in with a chance, because while the political system in the US seems to have other systemic concerns and little incentive to put right the abuses of the past, here in the UK it is politically expedient to do so both for the popularity of the changes themselves and as a means of strengthening the governing coalition. Time will tell...
Airport security is probably a bad joke. But acting and talking as if that's a foregone conclusion --- or worse, that it's part of some malignant scheme --- is counterproductive. It marginalizes everyone with a more reasonable or nuanced perspective about this issue.
Take off the "Buck Fush" t-shirt and be civil to the TSA guy. Say "I'm going to opt out of the body scanner". If enough people do, it'll get easier for everyone to avoid the electronic strip search machine.