-------- Original Message -------- Subject: NYC Subway Search Opinion Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 01:53:25 -0500 From: Daniel Solove <djsolove@private> To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private> Declan, A federal district court has just upheld the random searches on the NYC subways. I critique the court's decision here: http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2005/12/nyc_subway_sear.html An excerpt: In other words, the court is saying that any small increase in terrorists believing they might get caught makes such a policy an effective. But if "effectiveness" is to have any meaning, the benefits of a policy that requires a sacrifice in liberty should be more than just trivial or speculative. There is no evidence that this policy will have any deterrent effect. . . . It is bad enough that so much money and resources must be wasted on a largely symbolic exercise to make public officials look like they're doing something to protect us when they're not. This cosmetic program for public officials which drains money from other more serious threats. It is even worse that people must sacrifice liberty and convenience too. These are the type of search programs that the Fourth Amendment should weed out. Regards, Dan Daniel J. Solove Associate Professor of Law George Washington University Law School Website: http://www.danielsolove.com Blog: http://www.concurringopinions.com _______________________________________________ Politech mailing list Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Mon Dec 05 2005 - 08:49:40 PST