Papers Please: This Is A Free Country?

Your papers, please.
Your papers, please.

Papers Please: Arrested At Circuit City

I haven't seen any coverage of this story in the media, but then, I've not been watching the news much lately, so who knows? I wouldn't be surprised if the media turned a blind eye to this.

Tags:
This also appears in:

Next Posts

Previous Posts

Comments

Richard
This just sounds wrong on so many levels....richard sniffs... I smell a law suit.
The Educated Fool
I don't know, it doesn't seem a big deal to me that a store would want to examine my bag on the way out. I think this guy needs to find some bigger fish to fry.
Lyric
How many other civil liberties are you willing to forfeit because it's not a big deal to do so?
Doug
I remember reading about this, wishing that people would pay more attention to it. "No, you may not look in my bag. No, you may not see my identification." Sadly, the second statement usually loses if the encounter escalates.

I would love to see Circuit City, Best Buy, et. al., monetarily punished for treating their patrons like thieves. Personally, I will never shop in either of those stores again.
SpiritSeeker
This person was on private property so the store does have the right to inspect bags within reason. In your home you also have the right to inspect the contents of bags of visitors who you suspect may be taking something of yours.

The key word here is "reasonable search". This is a common practice in electronics stores.
The Educated Fool

What civil liberty? Push this reasoning to its logical conclusion, and stores are also not in their rights by placing electronic security systems at the exits of their stores which scan each customer and, I guess, assume the guilt of each of them. And you'd certainly have to say that installing cameras is a no-no. They watch and document every move you make in their store. Doesn't that fall under some invasion of privacy concern?

The fact is, ALL of these practices, including searching people's bags, is a necessary evil in this day and age. Like it or not, theft is an increasing problem, particularly in the city. We have a local Sears (Chicago) which loses so much money from shoplifting, it may soon go out of business.

I guess you would also feel that the TSA is doing something illegal by searching your luggage (which has happened to me)? Or U.S. customs for searching your car on the way in from Canada (which has happened to me)?

Your argument may be that, although it doesn't hurt you, there's a principle at stake here. I think you're overreacting, that I am simply not being violated in any way by having my bag inspected on the way out of a store, and that this guy was a complete moron for insisting on not being inspected. The store has every right to assume he stole something. Certainly he's got better things to do than to be so touchy about something so minor. And yes, I feel this is utterly minor. There are real civil liberties at stake in this country (such as the Patriot Act), and people who complain about stupid crap like this only dilute the attention that should be placed on the real problems.

The Educated Fool
"The store has every right to assume he stole something." I want to clarify this statement, by the way. I mean they have the right to assume he stole something ONLY if he refuses to let them inspect his bags. I don't feel that they are assuming he's guilty. To not inspect would be to assume everyone is innocent, in my opinion, and that is clearly not an option. Are the Blackhawks assuming that my wife has a gun in her purse when security asks her to open it on the way into the United Center?
Doug
I don't surrender the expectation of privacy simply by choosing to shop in a store, and I certainly don't surrender it to employees of the store. They may contact police to detain me if they wish, provided there is cause.

You have been watching me while I shop. Your hidden cameras have been watching me while I shop. Your undercover employees have been watching me while I shop. And now you want to inspect my bag just to make sure you haven't missed something? I don't think so.

Lyric

I think you are comparing apples and oranges in a manner of speaking. The TSA's inspections are publicized prior to your choosing a particular mode of travel. The searches at the stadiums are also something people are generally aware of prior to going to an event. In the Circuit City case, the consumer was not alerted to the potential search until after he made his purchase and was leaving the store. In the two prior cases, people who prefer not to be subjected to any sort of search have the liberty to make choices that allow them to avoid it. In the latter case, the consumer's liberty and privacy was, in my opinion, presumed upon by the proprietor.

There was a time when people in this country did not by nature trust authority so easily. Nowadays we're all to happy to just go with the flow and not create a fuss. Ya know, one isolated case might not be a big deal, but the big picture sums up to a much larger problem and it makes me sick that people so carelessly surrender their liberties because it's no big deal to do so without regard to the cumulative effect doing so is having.


Lyric

I don't surrender the expectation of privacy simply by choosing to shop in a store, and I certainly don't surrender it to employees of the store. They may contact police to detain me if they wish, provided there is cause.

You have been watching me while I shop. Your hidden cameras have been watching me while I shop. Your undercover employees have been watching me while I shop. And now you want to inspect my bag just to make sure you haven't missed something? I don't think so.

That about sums it up, Doug. I could't agree more.
The Educated Fool
You do have a point here. I hadn't thought about the "not being notified" aspect of this. I can see how this fact would bother someone. That was the best online discussion I've ever had! Keep it up!
Lyric
The key words here are 'within reason' and I think, as Doug pointed out, if all the in-store surveillance has not yielded grounds for suspicion, then inspecting the consumer's bag just in case, is going too far. I also agree that if there was cause to dtain someone, the police should be the ones to do so. Otherwise, this is harassment, imo.
Lyric
I'm glad you're enjoying it. I really appreciate being able to discuss differing views thoughtfully and respectfully rather than steeping constantly in my own opinions, so keep it coming!

Post a comment

Already a Vox member? Sign in

You will be asked to join Vox to post this comment.