We don't agree on that. I was being sarcastic, sorry that I didn't communicate well.

You are forced to submit to a search the way it is now. There is no way around it. To my mind, it is okay so long as the purpose is narrowed to security issues and anything else is completely disregarded.

This is not the same because you indeed are not forced to consent to the search under your scenario. But if you travel on an airplane, you are forcibly searched, otherwise you cannot travel.

You are forced to sign a tax return the same way. You don't "have" to sign it -- but you could wind up in jail if you don't. So you are in essence forced to sign. Since there is a strict right that you have against being forced to incriminate yourself, how is the requirement to sign a tax return under penalty of perjury reconciled with the right against self-incrimination?

It is to my thinking an identical circumstance with regard to being searched when you travel by air. Since you are "forced" to be searched, in the same way you are "Forced" to sign your tax return, the search must be narrowly focused and everything else turned up must be overlooked.

The difference is that on the tax return it states... "To the best of my knowledge the information on this form is complete and correct." That is the out. If something is incorrect, and you have kept your paperwork in order, there is no problem. If you indeed lied then that is another matter.

The bottom line is that this is not going to go away anytime soon, so you can either check that bag or not. Arguing about it, like arguing about paying taxes is pointless.



------------------
"All life is a concatenation of ephemeralities" - Alfred Kahn, American economist

This is the fatalist point of view. And sadly, probably true. If we travel, especially internationally as I do, we need to develop personal stategies that maximise our human rights with respect to privacy and inappropriate search or seizure no matter where in the world we might be.

I don't check bags unless absolutely unavoidable (which means I'm travelling with my golf clubs). I request that all my bags are with me in case I've been singled out for further searches. I am always visually vigilent at checkpoints. I don't call attention to myself but always open everything in case I've been called out for additional screening, pointing out where cables and other points of interest for security people might be.

Do I think this is invasive. Yes. Do I think this is ineffective. Yes. Am I willing to risk my career and personal life style to defend these issues. Sadly no. Does the U.S. constitution cover the rest of the world. No.

I'll repeat this point. Develop your own personal strategy to deal with the shortcomings of today's world. Defend yourself with awareness and intelligence. When a situation becomes unreasonable, point it out, document it if you intend to follow up, and then move on with your own plan.

As I understand it, free movement (or travel) is a right, not a priviledge. Technology's ability to move us faster or further has not changed that.

I'd like to add that I have no intent to make FT my forum to discuss political or legal issues around which I have only my opinions and no expertise. It is only that this thread brought forward a few thoughts I'd had and thought I'd add to the conversation.

There is a concept in law called "contracts of adhesion" where, for example, a landlord has a lengthy agreement with massive fine print, and a tenant with little bargaining power or skills is required to sign it to have a place to live. Such contracts are often construed against the landlord under public policy grounds.

This notion that I've voluntarily signed away my rights by purchasing an airline ticket sure seems to fit this same profile. I'd be more convinced if I thought it would be possible for a commercial carrier to compete on the grounds of privacy: "Fly with us and you won't be searched" where there was truly choice and existed options for a traveller who wasn't keen on being searched. However, if the FAA is mandating all carriers require this "voluntary" waiving of rights, then it sure isn't voluntary any more and that argument completely loses its effect.

[This message has been edited by Nugget (edited 09-05-2003).]

I do some side work in Tijuana for a friend (they manufacture tiles and decorative stones there) and do the border crossing about 2-3 times a week in my car. The catch is, i'm 23.

So, they ask what I was doing in Mex, I tell them that I work for a small manufacturer and was inspecting something that needs to be shipped up north, I also present a business card with my passport.

About half the time, they buy it with no further questions, the other half can take anywhere from 5 seconds to 5 minutes of questioning. I often hear the same question more than twice, been asked exactly where I live, the exact address of the shop in TJ, how long I've lived in california, how long i've owned my car, when and where I've had my tires changed...

I've been asked to step out of my car, routinely open the trunk, glovebox, adjust my seats forward.

The point isn't the fact they want to know where the good deals on tires are, they're seeing if I crack and am trying to hide something. They want to see if i'm smuggling drugs. I already have probable cause, since I was crossing from Mexico into the US. A 23 year old, driving alone, in a decent (ok, a honda civic) car is enough to drive suspicion (aside from the fact i'm also a full-time student).

My assumption is that as far as TSA and customs is concerned, you're guilty until proven innocent. A simple x-ray exam is a proof of innocence. Answering questions satisfactory is another proof of innocence. My friends one time, a bit intoxicated, made the mistake of telling the customs official when they were coming back into the US "I was doing stuff in Mexico I would never plan to tell my own mother." So that little prank cost them about 3 hours and a lengthy search of their car in San Ysidro.

Point is this, they have probable cause as you're entering an enclosed tube that can and has been used as an instrument of terror, extortion and crime. Until you prove that you have no negative intent, you are offically free.

Frankly, I feel the needs of the many outweight the needs of the one or the few (thanks, Spock) and don't mind a small hassle as long as I know that they're doing their job to ensure my saftey, as best they can.

I must say that as a British person this whole argument seems very strange.

The realitiy of modern day life is that if you do not search people and bags before they fly then some mad people will use this weakness and will fly more plans into buildings.

Therefore to me the arguement should be what needs to happen to make sure that the searches are not illegal. As for me if it is a choice between my bag being searched or 1000s of people dying it really is a no brainer.