Farenheit 451, here we come...

The BBQ Pit
41

I think the key word here is “arbitrary”. You do know that there’s a huge body of case law in the U.S. regarding what is and is not a justifiable search?

From what I can see, they’re actually trying to establish some guidelines. They may be fuzzy guidelines, but how do you know what they’re based on? Maybe there’s a high correlation between people picked up for terrorist activity and almanacs. Maybe they’re using the frigging things for book ciphers.

Gaspode is apparently against searching people soley based on apparent nationality or country of origin. Fair enough. But he also seems to be against adding incremental indicators (the possession of annotated reference materials in combination with apparent survelliance activities) as well. So I guess we just hope the terrorists decided wander around in public carrying submachine guns and C4 belts? Or would that also not merit a search?

As for “scared, petty, little people” – are you trying to imply that there is no terrorist threat? That 9/11 never happened? That there aren’t weekly proclamations from various terror groups that we should get our graves ready? I think it’s reasonable to be, if not scared, then at least very alert. Should civil liberties be trampled upon? No, but I don’t see any sign in the article cited by the OP that they are.

42

How is a LEO supposed to know if an almanac is “annotated” without having first searched the individual possessing it? How do you propose an LEO differentiate between annotated and unannotated almanacs prior to a search?

43

First of all, you apparently missed this in the original article (although I reposted it above):

So despite your assertion above, the memo does say “watch for suspicious use of almanacs,” and not just “watch for use of almanacs.”

Second, I’d expect LE to enforce this the same way they enforce everything else – by looking at the circumstances as a whole to determine if probable cause exists If given probable cause by the circumstances in their entirety, then LE can perform appropriate searches. If not, then they can ask permission to look at the almanac. If p/c doesn’t exist and they aren’t given permission, then they don’t get to look.

Some people here seem to think that this memo gives LE automatic probable cause to perform searches anytime someone is seen with a map or almanac. I assure you, the FBI does not have the power to determine what constitutes probable cause. The courts have exclusive jurisdiction over determining what constitutes probable cause, and they’re not going to cede that power to LE.

44

Yeah, it’s a great comfort knowing that when an LEO incorrectly decides that probable cause exists, a court is going to waggle a finger at that LEO a year and a half later. That so makes up for having the police randomly intruding into your life. :rolleyes:

45

Are you arguing that we should do away with probable cause searches altogether? Cops should have to get a search warrant from the courts before any search, to make sure they aren’t abusing their powers? I think that’s a little strong, especially considering this memo doesn’t authorize or even suggest that searches be made based solely upon the presence of a map or almanac.

And whose life is going to be randomly intruded upon? When and how are people’s lives going to be intruded upon? Do you really think people are going to be arrested for “possession of an almanac?” If so, please show me what you’re basing that belief upon, because you’re not basing it on anything in the OP’s article.

46

I like this better (with apologies to Steve Martin):

Cop opens fire on Almanac-carryin’ evildoer.

Evildoer: “Oh my god, he’s shooting at my Almanac! He hates the Almanac! Get away from the Almanac!”

47

Ah, yes. The “If you’re not guilty, you’ve got nothing to fear” rationale. Been there. Done that. Ain’t going back. Ain’t doing it again.

**
This is exactly the kind of thing I’m talking about. In the U.S., mere “suspicion” even “reasonable suspicion” is not probable cause. At least it’s not supposed to be.

But that is indeed the way the U.S. is heading. Believe me, you don’t want to live in a society where a police officer can turn your car, your house – and you – inside out because you “appear suspicious.”

48

I don’t think anyone is making the leap from possession of a reference book to automatic arrest but (IMO) it’s one more ugly step in the Bush admin’s assault against personal freedoms. And all done in the name of conservatism, mind.

I’m a librarian and this sort of shoddy thinking is damned scary. It equates books–knowledge–with danger unless subjected to monitoring and interpretation by the government. The crux is “suspicious” behavior. That’s so subjective it’s almost meaningless. The slightest anomalie can be deemend “suspicious” at need. And we all know how absolutely uniform and predicatable human behavior is in the first place.

Look, right now, under the “Patriot” Act, the feds can seize every computer in a public library to search what books people used. No judicial explanation required as to the individual(s), titles, nothing. Free ride for a wholesale governmental seizure. And as the library director I’m prohibited by federal law to even report the action to the Board of Trustees who are ultimately legally responsible–by law–for the library.

If you want to know why people are upset, take a good at the broader context. Terrorists are real, and they’re here. Law enforcement has a legitimate need to catch them. BUT there’s a very dangerous rush to sweep away the rights of ordinary citizens in the name of safety.
Think a little about books you’ve read or used. Edgy SF? Horror? Political commentary? The fact that you’ve read them doesn’t mean anything about the conclusions you may have drawn from them. But if someone was already looking for something “suspicious”, well, you’re officially screwed.

I’m sorry, I don’t trust the government that much, and I hate the nasty, inching steps this administration is taking to batten its own citizens under their control. Welcome to Big Brother in the name of conservatism and freedom.

49

This is probably my fault. I could have avoided your misunderstanding my point if, instead of saying, “as mandated by the law of the United States,” I’d said, “as allowed by the law of the United States,” or even better, “to the extent allowed by the law . . . .”

But in fairness, I think my point was made clear in the next two sentences, which you omitted:

My point was merely that suspicious circumstances are exactly what LE and the courts look at when determining if probable cause exists. Just being suspicious isn’t enough, and having a map certainly isn’t enough. But if there is probable cause, then the search should be permitted.

Thanks for calling me on my inexact wording. Hope my clumsiness didn’t confuse anyone.

50

I haven’t heard anything about a prohibition on your ability to talk about the government’s seizure of property. Do you have some authority for this point?

I can say that you’re wrong about the government’s ability to seize library property without judicial oversight. That’s prohibited under both the Constitution (deprivation of property without due process) and the Patriot Act. Under the Patriot Act, the government can’t investigate public records – like library files – without a court order. If you’ve heard otherwise, then you were informed incorrectly.

It’s also worth noting that the feds have to provide periodic reports to Congress, who oversees the use and enforcement of the Patriot Act, and the feds have looked at library books and records exactly zero times. If you honestly believe LE have unfettered power to intrude into your personal life (which is not true), then that should provide little comfort. But in the interests of honesty, we should point out that there are no examples of this occuring, ever.

51

Age:

Prior to this news release, do we suspect that LEA’s didn’t look for ‘suspicious behavior’??

I, personally, wouldn’t have thought so. I doubt that is your position, either, or the position of anyone else in this thread. So, let’s dispense then, w/the strawmen of “don’t you want the police to check up on suspicious activity”, ok? fine.

So, what, then, is the actual difference that this notice has brought about?

Apparently, it’s widened the definition of suspicious behavior, to include the possession of informational books such as the almanac- otherwise, why single the almanac out? why not say “suspicious behavior and the possession of white bread” for example? Because it’s singled out, along w/the phrase ‘suspicious behavior’, it’s an included item, something additional to look at to increase the intensity of scrutiny.

what we’re all suggesting is that the probative value of such an addition is more than a little suspect ie, anyone got any data suggesting that the known terrorists did in fact carry almanacs with them? I’ve not heard anything.

They also probably carried driver’s licenses, credit cards, cash, a toothbrush perhaps. Why not those items? Certainly the cash and credit cards were also used as tools in their quest. What about cameras? undeveloped film? No doubt those also played a part. Maps? you bet.

Problem w/that is that you end up with a data base of potential objects which do not screen anyone out - which makes it a particularly ineffective tool for LE purposes.

And, of course, the other problem, which we’ve been talking about, is the limitation and restriction on personal liberties.

For example - fingerprints. It’s known that when a crime occurs, one tool especially used for detection/solving purposes is the dusting for prints. The data base for prints taken includes: Military personnel, people who have been booked for criminal behavior, assorted other governmental workers. It does not include ‘everyone in the US’. (well, not yet anyhow). Don’t you think that the police would be greatly assisted by the inclusion of everyone’s prints? DNA??? WHy, think of the solve rates for crimes!

Gee, why don’t we do that? Well, 'cause in our country, in order for your prints/DNA etc to be taken, there has to be either some reason - a crime has been committed and we think you did it (not that we think you might commit a crime in the future); or you’ve voluntarily given them (as a condition of employment in the government/military).

Personal liberties vs. police state.

52

Fine. (I wasn’t aware that I ever said that, but I agree that we all agree on that point.)

Not exactly, but close enough.

Nor have I. However, I certainly hope that law enforcement doesn’t need to wait until a terrorist attack is committed using an almanac before figuring out that they could be helpful in such an attack. LE can be proactive, as well as reactive.

I disagree. Performing activities that look suspiciously like surveillance while in the possession of a map and/or almanac is not so broad a category as to “not screen anyone out.”

Again, the possession of a map or almanac is not the only factor to be considered. As you said, it’s one in a number of factors that should be considered. Cameras? Sure, that should be considered. Loose cash? Maybe. A toothbrush? I guess, if it seems to indicate that the person has been performing surveillance (for example, the individual is parked in a car outside a federal building, has binoculars, a camera, a map of the building and surrounding area with suspicious markings, a toothbrush, loose cash, and food wrappers, possibly indicating that he’s been performing surveillance from his car for the last couple of days – any one of those things is no big deal; all of them should perk up some ears).

You lost me here. Who’s suggesting a national database of fingerprints? Certainly not me. Certainly not the FBI. Certainly not this memo.

Nor is the FBI or this memo suggesting a national database of almanacs and maps. All they’re doing is trying to inform local LE of items that may be helpful while keeping an eye out for terrorist activity. I might share your concern if I saw any possible way that this could amount to the government keeping tabs on its people (which is what gives me the heeby-jeebies about the library records in the Patriot Act).

But it’s not. The government isn’t outlawing books or “making information dangerous.” It’s just putting more information out there – to LE and to the people. It hasn’t increased its powers, and it hasn’t increased the information it’s brought in. It’s just continuing along with one more thing to consider now in the grand scope of things.

53

Age - no, you didn’t suggest that we have a national database for fingerprints for LE, however, what you are suggesting is that LE agents include as suspicious events which have little (if any) probative value, and will include into the base of ‘persons w/suspicious items’ many people who are not likely to be the real target (terrorists).

Inclusion into the screening process should have merit. should be done for a reason, not ‘can it be used’? For that list, would be phenominally long and would enlarge the group of ‘suspicious persons’. Should be something that limits the group of ‘suspicious persons’ vs. ‘others’.

Why? let me clue you in - there is a finite amount of LE resources of time, effort, etc. We wish their time be best utilizied - that’s why we limit the screening on airlines, for example, to things which we have some reason to believe will be helpful, instead of, say, requiring passports, fingerprints, DNA samples, background checks, direct examination of all items on board, etc.

The inclusion of something as innocuous as an almanac will not do this. That’s why I asked, “is there any evidence that known terrorists used such an item?”.

Besides, as was mentioned before, an almanac is an idiotic thing to carry w/you for criminal behavior. It’s likely that 98% of the book will be of no use, and that the other 2% useful could be derived from other sources, done in other manners (notes for example) etc. Can you even imagine what specific piece of information (useful to a terrorist) found in an almanac **couldn’t ** be found in more convenient form ?

Nope, I see this as yet another one of the same "we’ve raised the level of alert to ‘brick red’ " "we’ve lowered the level to ‘yellow/orange’ " which allows for some semblence of “see, Homeland Security is working hard”.

Smoke and mirrors, signifying nothing.

54

This is somewhat disengenuous on your part. Yes, a court order is necessary; but it is issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (which meets in secret) under the auspices of the 1978 FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act). These judges need little convincing by federal agents to issue the order (according to this article, of 15,000 FISA requests in the past two decades, only one has been refused) and probable cause is not required.

While the members’ names are not secret, neither are they publicized. In addition the Patriot Act allows the feds to bypass 4th amendment rights of citizens in the pursuit of information. This provision has yet to be used (to my knowledge) for library searches under the Patriot Act provisions

55

Just FYI: Finger-printing is on for travelers coming in from select countries.

56

I don’t understand this. Are you saying that the list needs to include things that only terrorists would have? Nothing else can be considered because LE would be forced to search everyone?

I don’t agree with this at all. First, I’m not aware of anything that only terrorists have, and would therefore meet this criteria you seem to be setting up.

Second, LE does not need to have instructions that can only fit terrorists any more than cops need to have instructions on driving characteristics that can only fit drunks. For example, if the car is weaving, speed is erratic, the driver appears to be taking a pull off a bottle, and reaction time appears slowed, the officer can reasonably suspect that the driver has been drinking and pull him or her over. By being made aware that drunk drivers sometimes weave in and/or out of their lanes, police officers aren’t dangerously low on resources because they’re forced to pull over everyone that weaves even the slightest bit.

Police officers aren’t (all) idiots. They can use their brains to evaluate more than one characteristic at a time.

No, but not all terrorists have genius level IQs like the people on this board. They go for what’s easy, what’s available, and what’s obvious. And if an almanac or a map or whatever is there, they’ll use it.

Why would they carry it with them to the site? Hell if I know. But are we to assume that all terrorists act rationally and intelligently before strapping a bomb to their chests and marching into a shopping mall?

Sweet merciful crap!

I didn’t know this. That freaks me out. I can’t see how it’s Constitutional when applied to American citizens.

Let me do some research, and I’ll get back to you.

57

Age - again, it’s a balancing act. Since the LE’s do not have infinate resources as to time, $$, etc, it’s imperative that we not waste their time by chasing things that are unlikely to have significant results.

examples:

We could stop every car on the road to administer a breathalyzer to check for drunk drivers all the time.
or,
we could check drivers driving erratically, especially on holidays, such as NYE, St. Paddy’s day, etc, or around bars, after ‘closing time’ etc.

So, the issue of ‘is this a probative item’ or not becomes a serious question. Who is more likely to be carrying around an Almanac in their car, or on their person? A student or a terrorist? A tourist or a terrorist? I’d lay odds on to the former in each case. Since I can think of dozens of reasons the student or tourist would and zero for why a terrorist would. (ie in planning stages of an attack, perhaps, an almanac might have some information, but until there’s evidence that terrorists do, indeed carry them around as they’re about to attack, I do not see the value of selecting that item as being ‘suspicious’.).

IOW, it is really necessary for this to make sense, for them to be able to demonstrate “IS USED” vs. “COULD BE”.

58

let me try this:

you’ve got finite resources. You need to utilize them to their best advantage.

You have person A, and person B, both exhibiting what you’d think of as “suspicous” behavior. But you only have time to really check one of them out. You need to determine which additional information you can quickly observe in order to select which of these two you should check out further.

Will the ‘carrying of an almanac’ be sufficient?

would ‘carrying loose cash’ be sufficient?

would ‘carrying a credit card’ be sufficient?

would ‘carrying a box cutter’ be sufficient?

would ‘carrying a flight training manual’ be sufficient?

would ‘carrying a fuse’ be sufficient?

would ‘carrying a cigarette lighter’ be sufficient?

Remember - you only have time to check one of them.

does that help you understand why this is so obsurd??

59

my kingdom for a spell check edit. :slap:

60

For those of you who doubt the mayhem that can occur when things like this memo get applied in the field, take a look at this current thread of Antiquarian’s.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=232190

Antiquarian is an archeologist. He was detained for three hours because he had a rock pick in his checked luggage.

But hey, it’s for security, so don’t ask questions! Don’t blame the bureaucratic moron who came up with this idea, blame Osama! :rolleyes: