# Random searches on the New York Subway **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 21, 2005, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-searches-on-the-new-york-subway/313545 "2005-07-21T22:32:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 16
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2005, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-searches-on-the-new-york-subway/313545/301 "2005-07-24T14:11:16Z")
> [@Barbarian](#): > > That’s what the TSA does at airports, where every passenger gets searched. > > With the half-assed voluntary program currently in place, only a moron would try to smuggle his bomb past police when he can just walk away and enter another subway station that is _not_ being monitored. > > If actors carrying ‘bombs’ are ordered to go through searches before getting on subways, then it’s a test that doesn’t reflect reality. > > Look at the [map](http://www.mta.info/nyct/maps/submap.htm). There are just too many holes in the net the police have spread for it to be effective even as a deterrent. That’s not what I said. The actors would just walk into the station like everyone else. Also, you don’t need to keep harping on the number of “holes”, the police are also going to be able to search people on the platform. If my hypothetical actor gets past the turnstile and gets to the platform and can plant a “bomb” and is not caught a statistically significant number of times, or enough times that the New York City public considers satisfactory compared to the imposition involved. Incidentally, the news reports seems to indicate that New Yorkers are primarilly in favor of this if it is effective. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2005, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-searches-on-the-new-york-subway/313545/302 "2005-07-24T14:18:19Z")
> [@Snowboarder Bo](#): > > You want to live in a world where less people want to kill you? Stop fucking with so many people. > [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > Look, I’m no fan of our foreign policy at the moment, but maybe bombing the people on public transportation is not really the answer. How much power over troop movement do you think people riding the London underground possess? Do you think Rumsfeld rides the 4 train when he comes to New York? > > This is actually a decent debate despite being in the pit. You might want to consider context of a discussion before you post something useless. I’m not advocating killing citizens in the subway, at bus stops, or at any other place, for any reason. But, my comment is not useless. **You** are advocating fucking with countless innocent people in direct violation of the rights guaranteed in the Constitution. That is gonna piss off your _fellow American citizens_. You are right to understand the generalization, tho. We (the United States government, which represents the citizens of this country) meddle in other countries governments, economies, cultures, and religions in order to further our own aims. That pisses people off. We need to stop doing that. Are you telling me that you do not believe that Donald Rumsfeld, or any of our other government officials, is accountable to the will of the people? What fucking country do you think you live in, Fiveyearlurker? Stop being afraid, grow a pair, and exercise your Constitutional responsibilty to be a part of the government. It involves more than just throwing a lever in a voting machine, you know. ---
**Author:** ![Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e19adc/32.png) [@Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2005, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-searches-on-the-new-york-subway/313545/303 "2005-07-24T14:37:33Z")
**fiveyearlurker** , you’re being particularly dense. Under the current policy, a person holding a bomb is allowed to tell police “No I won’t tell you what’s in the bag so fuck off,” even if they are in a subway car because they entered at one of the hundreds of unpoliced stations. At which point they are to be politely escorted out of the station where they can go about their merry unmolested way. Or a subway riding bomber will answer a police query with a detonation. That’s the [stupid ethnic group of your choice] method of clearing a minefield. The only poll I’ve seen indicates that the majority of New Yorkers like the policy. Doesn’t necessarily make it a good or useful policy. I attribute it to the ‘white coat’ effect, where people will do anything that someone in authority asks. But the policy’s only been in effect since Friday. Wait and see how long people enjoy being held up on line as they try to enter the subway. In December when everyone’s wearing heavy coats. Fun fun fun. ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2005, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-searches-on-the-new-york-subway/313545/304 "2005-07-24T15:28:57Z")
> [@Barbarian](#): > > **fiveyearlurker** , you’re being particularly dense. Under the current policy, a person holding a bomb is allowed to tell police “No I won’t tell you what’s in the bag so fuck off,” even if they are in a subway car because they entered at one of the hundreds of unpoliced stations. At which point they are to be politely escorted out of the station where they can go about their merry unmolested way. > > Or a subway riding bomber will answer a police query with a detonation. > > That’s the [stupid ethnic group of your choice] method of clearing a minefield. > > The only poll I’ve seen indicates that the majority of New Yorkers like the policy. Doesn’t necessarily make it a good or useful policy. I attribute it to the ‘white coat’ effect, where people will do anything that someone in authority asks. > But the policy’s only been in effect since Friday. Wait and see how long people enjoy being held up on line as they try to enter the subway. In December when everyone’s wearing heavy coats. Fun fun fun. And I think you’re being particulary condescending. Who are you to tell the people of New York that that they are wrong and that they don’t need this policy. Maybe we don’t need your paternalism, and are actually correct. Also, prove that this is not a useful policy. I think I’ve dispensed with that argument by showing that there is no data. I’m advocating that we gather data. If it is a useless policy, I’m advocating removing it. Jesus, for all the calls for cites around here, you guys sure are reluctant to allow for generating those cites when a hypothesis goes against your belief system. I think you haave it right in the penultimate sentence there (not counting the final condescending phrase): wait and see. If it is too burdensome and it is ineffective then remove it. Right now, you have no data to support any of your assertions. And yes, you CAN actually prove a negative in this case. If it is ineffective, the experiments that I have outlined will show that. ---
**Author:** ![Biggirl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biggirl/32/3294_2.png) [@Biggirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biggirl)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2005, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-searches-on-the-new-york-subway/313545/305 "2005-07-24T15:50:22Z")
> [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > And I think you’re being particulary condescending. Who are you to tell the people of New York that that they are wrong and that they don’t need this policy. Maybe we don’t need your paternalism, and are actually correct. Well, I’m telling you that you are giving away _my_ rights with your silly and fear-fuelled tactics. It’s either be condescending or threat to kick your ass for being so cavalier with what I hold dear. > [@](#): > > Also, prove that this is not a useful policy. I think I’ve dispensed with that argument by showing that there is no data. I’m advocating that we gather data. If it is a useless policy, I’m advocating removing it. It has been proven to you over and over again. Let’s see. Without searches there have been zero bombings in the subway. According to the current data, not searching is 100% effective in NYC. In Israel they have searches. Buses are bombed continually. That data shows that searching has been 100% ineffective in Israel. You keep asking for "data’. When shown "data’, you just shrug it off. You don’t even try to explain why the facts given to you aren’t true. You don’t try to prove them false. You just _ignore_ it and continue your swim through the sea of willful ignorance. Then, when someone calls you on this, you get all offended. How do you have to say tp the fact that there will and _cannot_ not be 100% coverage and that these searches are not mandatory and can be refused? Saying that maybe, somehow, it is kinda possible that, by accident a bomber could be stopped from setting off his bomb in the train, maybe. You don’t know that a bomber won’t be retarded or something, since we’ve never done this before so we can’t predict if a miracle will happen. So just give up your rights. It’s only a little right anyway. Hardly any inconvience at all. After all, don’t we have a right to feel like we’re doing something even though we’re not? ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2005, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-searches-on-the-new-york-subway/313545/306 "2005-07-24T16:04:20Z")
> [@Biggirl](#): > > It has been proven to you over and over again. Let’s see. Without searches there have been zero bombings in the subway. According to the current data, not searching is 100% effective in NYC. > > In Israel they have searches. Buses are bombed continually. That data shows that searching has been 100% ineffective in Israel. You keep asking for "data’. When shown "data’, you just shrug it off. You don’t even try to explain why the facts given to you aren’t true. You don’t try to prove them false. You just _ignore_ it and continue your swim through the sea of willful ignorance. Am I being wooshed or do you really think that this is proof? Do you really need me to tell you why neither of these proves what you say it does? I’m asking seriously because I’m not sure whether you are being sarcastic or not here. ---
**Author:** ![Biggirl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biggirl/32/3294_2.png) [@Biggirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biggirl)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2005, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-searches-on-the-new-york-subway/313545/307 "2005-07-24T16:06:48Z")
> [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > Am I being wooshed or do you really think that this is proof? Do you really need me to tell you why neither of these proves what you say it does? I’m asking seriously because I’m not sure whether you are being sarcastic or not here. I want to know what you mean by “proof”. What would kind of ‘data’ are you looking for? Seriously. No whoosh. ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2005, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-searches-on-the-new-york-subway/313545/308 "2005-07-24T16:09:32Z")
> [@Biggirl](#): > > I want to know what you mean by “proof”. What would kind of ‘data’ are you looking for? Seriously. No whoosh. I posted an idea on the last page in terms of having people bring fake bombs and determining the detection rate. That is proof. Saying that Israel doesn’t detect every bomb does NOT mean it is 100% ineffective. That is NOT proof. I’m not advocating a useless system. I’m advocating finding out whether it IS a useful system and making a decision based on that (as well as all other factors). How is this possibly controversial? ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2005, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-searches-on-the-new-york-subway/313545/309 "2005-07-24T16:17:23Z")
fiveyearlurker, and anyone else who thinks these searches are a good idea, I’m still waiting for a response to post 287. If you feel it’s not a relevant point of discussion, say so, and why, but ignoring it makes it appear as if you don’t want to answer the question. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2005, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-searches-on-the-new-york-subway/313545/310 "2005-07-24T16:18:52Z")
> [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > I posted an idea on the last page in terms of having people bring fake bombs and determining the detection rate. That is proof. > [@](#): > > Undercover agents found it is easy to sneak fake bombs and weapons undetected past TSA screeners, and it has become obvious that TSA hasn’t done enough to halt thefts from the luggage of passengers, who must now leave their suitcases unlocked. [TSA’s legacy of waste](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=6401143) ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2005, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-searches-on-the-new-york-subway/313545/311 "2005-07-24T16:23:55Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > This is state, not federal; and not New York, still, it makes your point very well, and I agree with you now. Yeah, I thought that sounded like something that might have taken place in the early part of this century, in a mob-controlled town, not still today, even with the reforms in place. I should note that I have less of a problem with forfeiture **after** conviction, although I’d still like to see the convicted have some recourse to prove that the particular pieces of property were not purchased with ill-gotten gains, and would still expect better accounting than Muskogee. ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2005, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-searches-on-the-new-york-subway/313545/312 "2005-07-24T16:27:14Z")
Obviously, when I said “early part of this century”, I mispoke. It should be “early part of the last century.” ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2005, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-searches-on-the-new-york-subway/313545/313 "2005-07-24T16:35:00Z")
> [@Biggirl](#): > > So just give up your rights. It’s only a little right anyway. Hardly any inconvience at all. After all, don’t we have a right to feel like we’re doing something even though we’re not? not just that, but factor in the cost of the cops, the fact their reassignment leaves _other_ situations with less available police, not to mention the amount of time it costs each ofthe commuters, all to make a show that we’re ‘doing something’ even if it’s ineffectual. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2005, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-searches-on-the-new-york-subway/313545/314 "2005-07-24T16:59:58Z")
To all of you who are in support of this measure: Do you not see how this opens the door to more intrusive tactics? You have people here defending random searches by citing what’s done at airports. Can’t you see how one could, in a similar vein, defend random searches of cars and homes by citing what will now be the standard operating procedure for the NY subways? “I don’t know why you’re getting your panties in a wad about the cops searching your house. It’s no different, if you think about it, from searches of your property on the subway. And if you aren’t guilty of anything, you have nothing to fear.” When people realize how useless this is, then we will escalate to metal detectors at all subway entrances. You will no longer be able to carry weapons, sharp objects, aerosal sprays and containers holding liquids, or flammable devices on any subway, bus, or commuter train. Cops will be allowed to randomly frisk people and demand IDs. The A train just pulled up to the platform and you’re about to miss it? Too bad. Shoulda factored in an extra thirty minutes so we could search ya. Now take off your shoes, mister. Yes, I’m sliding down the slick slope a bit, but do you really think I’m out of my mind here? You would think that the subway trains were bastions of peace and safety prior to the London bombings based on the hysterical whining featured on this thread. No, they have always carried a risk of danger. And guess what? Random searches aren’t going to stop terrorists and they aren’t going to stop regular crime either. If you want the peace of mind that you’ll never be blown up, stay home. But don’t advocate measures that needlessly make life harder for the rest of us. I’m wondering if conservatives and liberals feel the same or differently about this issue. I would have thought that more conservatives would be up in arms about this. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2005, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-searches-on-the-new-york-subway/313545/315 "2005-07-24T17:25:59Z")
> [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > The ONLY way? Then you aren’t using your imagination at all. Hire 1000 actors (there are tons of them in NYC) of all sexes, creeds, ages and colors to bring “bombs” onto various subway platforms on various days at various times. You can not only judge the effectiveness, you’ll be able to cross reference it with whether the police are better at catching middle eastern looking men than white women. > > You can have some of them act entirely naturally, and some of them act suspiciously. And then judge how good the police are at catching a suspicous acting white woman at the 14th steet A station on Tuesday mornings at 10 AM. > > Seriously, I said earlier that this is testable. Of course this is testable. Yeah, geat idea. :rolleyes: For such an experiment to work, it would have to be kept secret from the police. Now, i don’t know about you, but i’m not willing to put an imitation bomb in my backpack and then open it for the police. Those police, upon seeing such a device, might not know it was fake, and might blow my head off before the experiment could be explained to them. Also, despite being asked on multiple occasions, you have yet to explain how this might work when all the person with the bomb (fake or real) has to do in order to avoid detection is turn around and walk out of the subway station, and walk to a different station or try again later. You’re pissing into the wind here. You would at least be mor intellectually honest if you said something like, “Hey, i know that this strategy is never going to work, but it makes me feel better seeing all those police in the subway.” While i don’t agree with **Eve** position, i at least understand that the feeling of security provided by a police presence is important for some people. ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2005, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-searches-on-the-new-york-subway/313545/316 "2005-07-24T18:00:37Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > Also, despite being asked on multiple occasions, you have yet to explain how this might work when all the person with the bomb (fake or real) has to do in order to avoid detection is turn around and walk out of the subway station, and walk to a different station or try again later. Well, for the proposed test to be accurate, the actors would have to know this fact, so I say go ahead with the experiment. When every single actor manages to get his or her bomb into the system by the simply changing stations when they see people being searched, then hopefully people will see that they are sacrificing civil liberty for absolutely jack-fucking-squat. ---
**Author:** ![kidchameleon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/898d66/32.png) [@kidchameleon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kidchameleon)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2005, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-searches-on-the-new-york-subway/313545/317 "2005-07-24T18:06:22Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > To all of you who are in support of this measure: > > Do you not see how this opens the door to more intrusive tactics? You have people here defending random searches by citing what’s done at airports. Can’t you see how one could, in a similar vein, defend random searches of cars and homes by citing what will now be the standard operating procedure for the NY subways? I don’t think the slope slips that way. Your house doesn’t go anywhere. It can’t go to the subway, the airport or a bank. Cars, OTOH, have always been looked at differently due to their mobility. However I don’t see random searches at subways somehow allowing random searches along the streets of New York for cars. ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2005, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-searches-on-the-new-york-subway/313545/318 "2005-07-24T18:14:54Z")
> [@kidchameleon](#): > > I don’t think the slope slips that way. Your house doesn’t go anywhere. It can’t go to the subway, the airport or a bank. That’s already been dealt with in this thread (even though you and others have repeatedly ignored it). While your house doesn’t go anywhere, the bombs are likely being built there. It seems like it would be a lot better to catch the terrorists before they ever even leave their houses, thus minimizing the risk to innocent people on subways and in stations. So, are you okay with the government searching your house at random? ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2005, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-searches-on-the-new-york-subway/313545/319 "2005-07-24T18:23:45Z")
> [@DMC](#): > > If we can freely search houses, we could randomly search them and hopefully find the terrorists before they even leave for their targets. Are you okay with that? > > If not, exactly where do you draw the line, the one where you decide that it becomes better to give up a bit of liberty for a sense of security? Feel free to be as specific as possible. > > Can we search you before you go to a restaurant, the mall, an amusement park, a stadium, etc? How intrusive would you allow the search to be? Just large bags, or should we be allowed to search under clothing, to ensure that someone hasn’t strapped explosives to their waist or legs, stuffed them in their bras, etc? I didn’t respond to this because it would end up hijacking the thread into a whole new thing. But, the slippery slope argument is so intellectually dishonest that it tends to be an admission that you are wrong. You’ve answered the question in your own question: “where do you draw the line?” Fine, that means that there is a line to be drawn. So, to directly answer your question, I draw the line in between searches of the subway platform and searches of your home. Is the willingness to draw a line a sign of weakness of the argument or something? Murder is illegal, punching someone in the face is illegal, tapping someone on the shoulder is legal. Lines get drawn all the time. That’s what laws are for, to decide where the lines are. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2005, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-searches-on-the-new-york-subway/313545/320 "2005-07-24T18:26:16Z")
> [@kidchameleon](#): > > I don’t think the slope slips that way. Your house doesn’t go anywhere. It can’t go to the subway, the airport or a bank. Cars, OTOH, have always been looked at differently due to their mobility. However I don’t see random searches at subways somehow allowing random searches along the streets of New York for cars. Just wait till NYC sees its first explosion of a highrise apartment or a car bomb parked on the side of a busy street (heaven forbid, of course). Then you’ll hear the chorus crying about the need for random searches of everything large enough to carry a bomb. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-searches-on-the-new-york-subway/313545.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-searches-on-the-new-york-subway/313545.md?page=17)