Home | About | RSS Feed | Contact and Publicity Guidelines | Comment Policy the Law, the Universe, and Everything 

Search


Concurring Opinions is a
general-interest legal blog
operated by Concurring
Opinions LLC, a Pennsylvania
Limited Liability Corporation.

jr_12809_9780195367195_bnr.JPG

ad-logo5.jpg

Our Podcast

Subscribe to Law Talk

law-rev-contents2.jpg


  • Posts by Author

  • Categories

  • Archives


  • Recent Comments

    • Bruce Boyden on Lori Drew Tentatively Acquitted

    • alex on Lori Drew Tentatively Acquitted

    • Dan Culley on Perils of a “Lightly Regulated” Insurance Market

    • Frank Pasquale on Financial Innovation?

    • Robyn A on Lori Drew Tentatively Acquitted

    • Bruce Boyden on Lori Drew Tentatively Acquitted

    • Larry Rosenthal on Truthseeking and Criminal Procedure in the Supreme Court’s Last Term

    • Howard Wasserman on Truthseeking and Criminal Procedure in the Supreme Court’s Last Term

    • Adam on Financial Innovation?

    • Amy on Truthseeking and Criminal Procedure in the Supreme Court’s Last Term

    • cjmajor on Lori Drew Tentatively Acquitted

    • cj on Lori Drew Tentatively Acquitted

    • Howard Wasserman on Truthseeking and Criminal Procedure in the Supreme Court’s Last Term

    • Colin Miller on Truthseeking and Criminal Procedure in the Supreme Court’s Last Term

    • concerned mom on The Lori Drew Trial: Verdict

  •  

    Site Meter

Random Bag Searches for Train Travel

posted by Daniel Solove

train1.jpgAccording to the AP:

Amtrak will start randomly screening passengers’ carry-on bags this week in a new security push that includes officers with automatic weapons and bomb-sniffing dogs patrolling platforms and trains.

The initiative, to be announced by the railroad on Tuesday, is a significant shift for Amtrak. Unlike the airlines, it has had relatively little visible increase in security since the 2001 terrorist attacks, a distinction that has enabled it to attract passengers eager to avoid airport hassles.

Indeed, one of the joys of train travel is the absence of inconvenient security practices. Amtrak appears to be trying to create a system of random searches akin to the NYC subway random search program, which I have criticized in the past as being largely symbolic.

The Amtrak system is a bit less intrusive, however:

The teams will show up unannounced at stations and set up baggage screening areas in front of boarding gates. Officers will randomly pull people out of line and wipe their bags with a special swab that is then put through a machine that detects explosives. If the machine detects anything, officers will open the bag for visual inspection.

Anybody who is selected for screening and refuses will not be allowed to board and their ticket will be refunded.

In addition to the screening, counterterrorism officers with bomb-sniffing dogs will patrol platforms and walk through trains, and sometimes will ride the trains, officials said.

Interestingly, there has been no terrorist bombing on any Amtrak train post 9-11. I often hear the specious argument that various security measures (NSA surveillance, random subway searches, government data mining, etc.) are effective because of the fact we haven’t had any terrorist attacks recently. But one can make the same silly argument about Amtrak — it did little to nothing about security, and . . . abracadabra . . . no terrorist attacks! So according to this logic, the no-security system must really work, right?


Of course, who can argue with a few bomb sniffing dogs and some magic wands? It doesn’t seem all that bad. But will it be effective? I don’t really know. But my sense is that neither do the so-called security experts, who seem to dream up various security measures without doing much of a sophisticated analysis of their effectiveness. For example, according to the AP article:

Amtrak has received a number of federal grants aimed at boosting security, but officials said there was no specific mandate to implement the changes.

“There is no new or different specific threat,” [Amtrak chief executive] Kummant said. “This is just the correct step to take.”

Why is it “just the correct step to take”? Because it feels right? Because it seems like a useful expenditure of resources from the gut level? It would be interesting if we started to examine security more scientifically. I, for one, would welcome having better facts when evaluating security measures. I think that more sophisticated study of security will benefit both those who concoct various security programs and those who criticize them.


 February 18, 2008 at 9:53 pm   Posted in: Privacy (National Security)   Print This Post Print This Post

Responses (3)

  1. Samir Chopra - February 19, 2008 at 9:37 am

    This is a real pity. Just last week, I traveled up to Union College for a talk, and was struck (once again) by how much more comfortable a train ride was than a plane trip. And now this. Refusing a bag search on the NYC subway is relatively painless; not so on a Amtrak trip, where one’s destination is much further away, and trains less frequent.

  2. KipEsquire - February 19, 2008 at 1:43 pm

    “In addition to the screening, counterterrorism officers with bomb-sniffing dogs will … walk through trains, and sometimes will ride the trains, officials said.”

    This comes perilously close to constituting a (suspicionless) dog sniff of a person’s body, a uniquely instrusive search that has never been sanctioned by any court, and certainly not by the Supreme Court.

  3. 2005 - February 19, 2008 at 4:29 pm

    Wow. I’m willing to pay extra for Amtrak because I can show up 5 minutes before the train leaves and not have to have rude incompetents rifle through my stuff. I may have to switch to Greyhound if this continues.

Leave a Reply

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.
Click to hear an audio file of the anti-spam word


  • « Previous post
  • Next post »

Authors

Daniel J. Solove

Website
Understanding Privacy

Kaimipono Wenger

Website
SSRN Page

Dave Hoffman

Website
SSRN Page

Nate Oman

Website
SSRN Page

Frank Pasquale

Website
SSRN Page

Deven Desai

Website
SSRN Page

Michael O'Shea

Website
SSRN Page

Sarah Waldeck

Website
SSRN Page

Lawrence Cunningham

Website
SSRN Page

Danielle Citron

Website
SSRN Page

Jaya Ramji-Nogales

Website
SSRN Page

Solangel Maldonado

Website
SSRN Page

Gerard Magliocca

Website
SSRN Page


Guests

Michael Abramowicz
Robert Hillman
Kevin Johnson
Sarah Lawsky
Robert Percival
Jenia Turner






Previous Guests

Michael Abramowicz
Michelle Adams
Robert Ahdieh
Michelle Anderson
Laura Appleman
Ann Bartow
Francesca Bignami
Jeremy Blumenthal
Bruce Boyden
Donald Braman
Al Brophy
Neil H. Buchanan
Bill Burke-White
Scott Burris
Paul Butler
Naomi Cahn
Anupam Chander
Miriam Cherry
Jack Chin
Jennifer Collins
Allison Danner
Brannon Denning
Deven Desai
Mike Dimino
Mark Edwards
David Fagundes
Christine Haight Farley
Kim Ferzan
Dan Filler
Michael Froomkin
Amanda Frost
Timothy Glynn
Rachel Godsil
Eric Goldman
David Gray
Craig Green
Tristin Green
Jeffrey Harrison
Erica Hashimoto
Carissa Hessick
Laura Heymann
Christine Hurt
Darian Ibrahim
Dan Kahan
Brian Kalt
Sam Kamin
Chimène Keitner
Orin Kerr
Nancy Kim
Heidi Kitrosser
Adam Kolber
Russell Korobkin
Anita S. Krishnakumar
Susan Kuo
Greg Lastowka
Sarah Lawsky
Erik Lillquist
Jeff Lipshaw
Jonathan Lipson
Jacqueline Lipton
Joseph Liu
Michael Madison
Solangel Maldonado
Jason Mazzone
William McGeveran
Salil Mehra
Carrie Menkel-Meadow
Max Minzner
Scott Moss
Eric Muller
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Helen Norton
Elizabeth Nowicki
Paul Ohm
Michael O'Shea
David Opderback
Kristen Osenga
Rafael Pardo
Marcy Peek
Eduardo Peñalver
David Post
Shruti Rana
Geoffrey Rapp
Neil Richards
Lori Ringhand
Alice Ristroph
Susan Scafidi
Paul Secunda
Jessica Silbey
Peter Smith
Charles Sullivan
Rick Swedloff
Steph Tai
Andrew Taslitz
Robert Tsai
Steve Vladeck
Sarah Waldeck
Melissa Waters
Alfred Yen
David Zaring
Timothy Zick
Howard Wasserman
Frank Wu
Corey Yung
Jonathan Zittrain

Blogroll

Above the Law
ACS Blog
Althouse
Balkinization
Becker-Posner Blog
BlackProf
BoingBoing
Chicago Law Faculty Blog
Conglomerate
CrimLaw
Crime & Federalism
CrimProf Blog
Crooked Timber
Discourse.net
Dorf on Law
Election Law
Emergent Chaos
The Faculty Lounge
Feminist Law Profs
43(B)log
Freakonomics Blog
Freedom to Tinker
Google Blogoscoped
How Appealing
Ideoblog
Info/Law
Instapundit.com
Juris Novus
Jurisdynamics
Law and Humanities Blog
Law and Letters
Law Librarian Blog
Legal Profession Blog
Legal Theory Blog
Legal Times Blog
Leiter Reports
Brian Leiter's Law School Reports
Lessig Blog
Madisonian Theory
Media Law Blog
Mirror of Justice
The Moderate Voice
National Security Advisors
Opinio Juris
Point of Law
PrawfsBlawg
ProfessorBainbridge.com
Property Prof Blog
Red Tape Chronicles
The Right Coast
Schneier on Security
SCOTUSBlog
Security Dilemmas
Sentencing Law and Policy
Simple Justice
Sivacracy.net
The Situationist
Susan Crawford
TalkLeft
Talking Points Memo
TaxProf Blog
Tech & Marketing Law
Truth on the Market
Volokh Conspiracy
WorkPlace Prof Blog
WSJ Law Blog
Wonkette
The Yin Blog


© Concurring Opinions

Powered by WordPress