Papers, bitte

[msmemory_archive]

Eish. They've started checking IDs on the Green Line. Apparently, if you are innocent, you are not supposed to mind.

Comments

[hawkegirl.livejournal.com]

Like a drivers license or state ID type thing? What if you don't have any?

[msmemory.livejournal.com]

I have not heard what happens if you don't have ID. What if you're under 16, and not eligible for a driver's license or state ID? What if you are from abroad and not carrying your passport with you daily, or it has expired? Or from out of state and didn't know?

What if you do produce ID and they don't like what it says?

We all heard about people stopped for "driving while black" a couple years ago - now it sounds like you'd better not be taking the subway while Middle Eastern.

[metahacker.livejournal.com]

What if you don't have a driver's license? I ran into this a number of times (I got my license "late", at 21). People wouldn't believe who I was. As if a piece of plastic is more me than *me*. Sigh.

The right of police to demand your ID is currently before SCOTUS, if I remember correctly...or did we already lose this one?

Maybe I'll start making up "SUSPECTED TERRORIST" buttons and handing them out on the Green line. We are all, now, suspected terrorists.

[dsrtao]

The right of police to demand your ID is currently before SCOTUS, if I remember correctly...or did we already lose this one?

Hiibol vs Nevada. In progress, currently.

Even if I have ID, I will refuse to identify myself without an adequate reason from the officer in question.

[alexx-kay.livejournal.com]

Have you given some thought to what you would accept as "adequate reason"? They're unlikely to have warrants. Personally, I am finding "I am a big scary man with a gun and the (practical, though perhaps illegal) power to arrest you" argument to be fairly compelling. I'm still mulling over where to draw the line between personal comfort and important civil disobedience on this one...

[dsrtao]

Yes, I have. The officer should clearly state the reason for the request for identification, the reason I am being stopped, and whether he/she suspects me of any crimes (and if so, what, exactly), or what events I am thought to have witnessed.

I am a big nice man who, if carrying a gun, is doing so legally. Arrest is a very important line to cross. The police only have what powers we give them; the power to coerce identification is extremely limited.

[umbran.livejournal.com]

What if you are from abroad and not carrying your passport with you daily, or it has expired?

My memory on this is spotty, but while I don't recall that foreign nationals are required to have their passport with them at all times, with only a few exceptions (Canadians being the first that pops to mind) they are supposed to have a currently valid passport, and have been so required for decades. As far as I recall, if they're here with an expired passport, they're inviolation of the law.

[msmemory.livejournal.com]

Right, they are in violation of the law if their passports expire. Are the MBTA police now going to enforce immigration laws? What if my driver's license is expired? Is it still valid ID? What if my name is Muhammad al-Zahira?

[umbran.livejournal.com]

Right, they are in violation of the law if their passports expire. Are the MBTA police now going to enforce immigration laws?

Hey, I didn't say it would be a smart or efficient way to go about things. You asked a simple question - What if you're from abroad and your passport has expired? - as if this should be some form of excuse that we should let off. It isn't. Foreign nationals who have let their documents expire aren't due any special sympathy or leniency.

If your driver's license has expired, then technically, it is not still a valid ID. That begs the real question. We shouldn't be asking, "What if there's an inconvenience associated with my ID?" We should be asking if this is legal or right at all. And that is currently being addressed by the courts. In difficult times, sometimes patience is required.

I'm terribly sorry that you feel put upon and inconvenienced by being asked by an officer to show ID. But on the scale of draconian possibilities, this is small potatoes.

Folks here tend to forget that freedom isn't easy, quick, instant gratification. Freedom is hard work and hard thinking. We are faced with threats that defy our normal systems. I'm terribly sorry that coming up with sane policy that satisfies the conflicting public needs, public wants, and public rights takes some time and trial and error.

[rufinia.livejournal.com]

They what? ::blinks::

Are they high?

[msmemory.livejournal.com]

http://www.livejournal.com/community/b0st0n/2054384.html

They had announced their intent to begin random checks about a week or 10 days ago.

[rufinia.livejournal.com]

My god.

[johno.livejournal.com]

If I had the time, I would travel with without an ID, just to tie up their time and make it more of an effort.

[msmemory.livejournal.com]

Well, if you're coming out for Worldcon, you may have that chance :)

[metahacker.livejournal.com]

travelling without an id wastes your time, too, when they cart you off. Travel with an id, but feign ignorance, and start pulling out all your old high-school library cards, book-club cards, AAA membership, etc., etc. When they start bringing out the handcuffs, "discover" your ID, "Oh, what about this one? Is that what you want?"

Or, bring a permission slip from your mother. Those should work great.

[zachkessin.livejournal.com]

I think I would pull out my Israeli Tudat Zahut (national ID), its a government issue ID, it has my picture and my name on it. Of course the name is in Hebrew, but thats not my problem.

On the other hand before I was able to get that here (Due to a strike) I used my mass drivers licence without any problem in Jerusalem as ID.

[johno.livejournal.com]

I don't know about MA, but here in CA, you are NOT required to carry government ID.

[metahacker.livejournal.com]

Do you have a legal reference for that?

[johno.livejournal.com]

I can't find the refernce.

On the news yesterday when MA ID checks were reported, the reporter noted at the end that a a California Supreme Court decision stated that carrying ID was not required.

This was a case where a black jogger was often harrased and arrested by police for not carrying ID in a ritzy neiborhood.

Turns out, he was rich and a lawyer.

[herooftheage.livejournal.com]

I don't think it will. Wasting a cop's time on this is a plus for him, not a minus: I suspect a fairly large number of cops hate this idea too, and so spending it on a person being ornery is better than spending it on a dozen who aren't. Being obstructive is not going to send anyone a message they'll hear.

I think the only message that will get heard is civil disobedience, on a large scale. Either people are going to be willing to get hauled off to jail in large enough numbers on this one to affect policy or the policy will get implemented until the times change, and courts put a stop to this sort of nonsense.

[metahacker.livejournal.com]

You're surely right. The only positive effect this can have is to require more officers to perform the same job. If this occurs enough, eventually it will get rather expensive; the officers will love the overtime pay, but the local government might suddenly discover a financial incentive to roll back enforcement.

[shipbrook.livejournal.com]

Just on the Green Line?

[tpau]

blink blink blink. goody.

[lensedqso.livejournal.com]

Great. Reminds me of New Mexico. I gave in and got a passport when I lived there because I was sick to death of being harrassed by the border police all the time. They still harrassed me with the passport, btw, even though I don't speak Spanish. I guess they automatically think that anyone with long black hair is Mexican.

I wonder why the Green line? It's already by far the slowest of the slow. Or are they doing it everywhere and the folks who've posted just happened to be on the Green line? In any case, ugh.

[cvirtue.livejournal.com]

I'm definitely with the "be very polite but fail to find my ID" crowd opinion. Until they get really likely to cart me away.

Time to send more money to the ACLU.

[jducoeur]

I think I fall into a slightly different camp: "very polite but refuse to find my ID". It's a courage-of-convictions thing -- I'm not going to play dumb and pretend that I'm having trouble, but I also think it's better not to get in the officer's face about it.

The appropriate action seems to be a calm but firm statement of, "I'm sorry, officer, but I consider these random checks an unconstitutional civil rights violation. I'm a US citizen and a resident of this area, but you are going to have to arrest me to prove that. I don't want to make your life difficult, but *someone* has to make a stand about civil liberties -- it's not something that can just be shrugged off."

In reality, I suspect whether I do this or not will be situational; it's not a statement to make unless I *am* prepared to be arrested over it, so whether I do so would depend on the timing. It's possible that simply being inconveniently dilatory would be the best reaction if I'm not prepared for that. But if it's a quiet day, this seems like the right way to treat the matter...

Shall we slow down a bit?

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

I just perused the MBTA web site. No such generalized announcement was made. I searched the Boston Globe web site - no such comment. I checked archives of press releases - no such release. The original article says it happened ONE TIME - it does not cite a pattern of such sweeps.

I can certainly see and understand why a one-time or rare sweep of that sort was done. If it became a pattern I'd be up against the barricades. But let's not get too hasty, too quickly.

Why not write to the MBTA General Manager (gm@mbta.com) and ask him about it? Or write to one of the columnists in the Globe, or to the City Desk?

Re: Shall we slow down a bit?

[metahacker.livejournal.com]

Well, for one thing, it's already required on airlines. John Gilmore's making a name (and nuisance of) for himself out of protesting this, but it's an important point he is raising.

A little blurb from NECN:

MBTA To Institute ID System
(5/22/04 7:50 a.m.) The MBTA is going to start checking passenger ID’s on rail and subway systems as part of a new security plan. The Boston Globe says MBTA police will start asking passengers for identification and question them about their activities.

Unfortunately their site doesn't offer good linking possibilities (i.e., that wants to pop up a javascript window).

A writeup in the Boston Globe has slightly more details.

I cannot find an official statement on the MBTA website.

This *will* be happening. Unless they're pulling a good one over on their readers.

Re: Shall we slow down a bit?

[dsrtao]

The Globe had an article in which it was announced that Troop F had finished their training and was about to commence making identification stops.

Re: Shall we slow down a bit?

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

OK, my mistake. (Why didn't I check Google News first?

Here are some confirming articles

Now I'm pissed.

Re: Shall we slow down a bit?

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

Perhaps the rash amongst us would like to know about document by the ACLU called "KNOW YOUR RIGHTS: What To Do If Questioned By Police, FBI, Customs Agents or Immagration Officers". While mostly aimed at immigrants, it contains the following advice:

Q: What if the police stop me on the street?
A: Ask if you are free to go. If the answer is yes,
consider just walking away. If the police say you
are not under arrest, but are not free to go, then
you are being detained. The police can pat down
the outside of your clothing if they have reason to
suspect you might be armed and dangerous. If
they search any more than this, say clearly,
“I do not consent to a search.” They may keep
searching anyway. You do not need to answer any
questions if you are detained or arrested.

Q: What if police stop me in my car?
A: Keep your hands where the police can see
them. You do not have to consent to a search. But
if the police have probable cause to believe that
you have been involved in a crime or that you have
evidence of a crime in your car, your car can be
searched without your consent. Clearly state that
you do not consent. Officers may separate
passengers and drivers from each other to
question them and compare their answers, but
no one has to answer any questions.

Re: Shall we slow down a bit?

[cvirtue.livejournal.com]

It seems to me that an ID check on the train is inefficient. Yes, someone could bring explosives on the train, but that someone could also hop off the platform and deposit them up in the tunnel somewhere. The place to check IDs (or to scan the crowds for something wrong) is at the turnstyles, where entry is more or less slow and orderly, and before someone is into the stations and tunnels.

I still don't like the ID check. But the method seems to continue reinforcing to me that there is a BIG difference between real effective measures, and measure which are meant to be seen publically to make people feel better. And its those latter which are most intrusive to law-abiding citizens.

Re: Shall we slow down a bit?

[jtdiii.livejournal.com]

Of course on the green line, they are stuck checking in the cars, as the majority of Green line stops are open air locations, on the side of the road, with no turnstiles. :)

Re: Shall we slow down a bit?

[cvirtue.livejournal.com]

*slaps self on head* Of course. It's been quite a while since I rode the T regularly.

[silme.livejournal.com]

And if you are guilty, you'd have a false ID, yes? :)

[jducoeur]

Naturally. Yet another example of the sheer idiocy of this particular policy...

Privacy and inconvenience

[rickthefightguy.livejournal.com]

To respond to Jane's original note, it is hard to say. Obviously some innocent people do mind. I am innocent, and I don't mind. In fact, I would rather have my ID checked while on the train than while at the turnstile (where there is one) - it would keep me from being delayed, although it might slow down my reading for a moment. On the other hand, the new loud and clear announcements of what stop we are approaching are more annoying in that way.

However, I don't have a big privacy bug. I am not convinced privacy is actually a societal advantage. Certainly privacy is one of the most valuable tools of criminals, and only marginally valuable to the law-abiding. There are lots of cases where checking my _insert checked chracteristic here_ is not an invasion of privacy that I care about. For example, when a policeman checks my speed with his radar gun, I do not complain that I am being treated like a 'potential speeder'. When they check my FOID when I buy blanks in the city, I am glad they are doing it. My local grocery store keeps track of what I buy using my discount card, and that is a good thing, because I get coupons and deals on the stuff I actually _want_, which is why they want to know in the first place.

The big place where privacy is an advantage is in a society where non-criminal activity is punished either by culture or authority. So, for example, if I were gay, I might want to keep that private if I was going to suffer for it (or Jewish, for that matter). But I think privacy is still a loss there. Since most of us can hide stuff like that to an extent, the hypocrites who punish it while doing it can get away with it. I suspect that a lot of lawmakers, _who are secretly gay_ would vote _for_ a law against gay marriage. If everyone knew, they would not be as likely to, which would be good for them and good for us. On the other hand, if I completely trusted the government and society not to punish me for anything I did that wasn't illegal, I would be happy to have cameras in every street and parking lot. I don't, really, but I don't know how much of that is paranoia. If we really did away with privacy, I would get more advantage out of knowing the government's secrets than they would get out of knowing mine. And we would both benefit far more than criminals would, while suffering far less.

Re: Privacy and inconvenience

[herooftheage.livejournal.com]

My objection is not the problem of privacy, per say, but at the extension of police powers, and the requirement that I have to be able to prove who I am at a moment's notice. It is basically a question of where I want to draw the line - and keeping the police as limited as possible is an easier place to draw it than granting them more power - simply because power exists to be used, and if the police have it, they'll use it.

There's a good bit in one of the SPQR books where the protagonist gets asked why Rome doesn't have a police force, and he incredulously wants to know who in their right mind would give someone their own publicly sanctioned private army right in the middle of the city. Now one might think that wouldn't apply here, but remember that Massachusetts is a state where the A.G. indicted John Silbur the day after he lost a gubenatorial election, so far as I can tell, simply for losing it.

Btw, we are close to coming to having cameras on every street corner and every parking lot - it is just that most of them are still privately owned. I do think privacy in the 21st century is a myth - but I still want to limit the government's access to the information.

[baron-elric.livejournal.com]

Nancy and I saw the original article in the Globe describing the searches. We found the announcement interesting not so much for the fact of the checks but for the extreme vagueness as to when and where they might take place, what the grounds for them might be, what would constitute satisfaction for the officer(s) making the checks, and what penalties might apply for failure to produce satisfactory documentation.

I suppose one could always feel one was doing their part to ensure security for all by greeting any officers one saw on the "T" and asking whether they would like to inspect one's ID....