Amtrak police use of passenger data | Hacker News Reader

Amtrak police use of passenger data

papersplease.org

I had a strange run in with Amtrak police once.

My wife and I reserved a cabin car for a long trip from Oakland to Denver. After entering the cabin in Oakland there was a knock on our door. I opened the door and a man identified himself as Amtrak police and asked me if a bag he was holding was ours. He was dressed like a normal passenger, undercover. He had a badge which he briefly flashed and then immediately asked me if this bag was ours. He jammed himself into the door and showed the badge in such a way that I could not close the door, and his badge was not visible to people in the hallway.

It wasn't and I had never seen it before, so we said no. He went away. Later he came back and asked the same question again. This time I was sick of him and told him to leave us alone, and that it wasn't our bag. He left us alone after that.

Prior to this I had no idea Amtrak police even existed. The guy was a jerk and was clearly trying to get us to admit to owning this bag. I have no idea why, but but I do regret not getting a better look at his badge. It could have been some plastic kids badge for the amount of time he showed it to me.

I've heard every LIRR train has at least a couple of state(?) police on it at all times. This is very much hearsay, but if it's true it may be a condition on many other train lines as well.

In the middle of a ride once, the train stopped because of some investigation and all passengers had to exit. Before/as this happened I saw at least two state troopers walking through my car to another car; while they could have gotten on the train at a station, I believe they were already on the train...

>Amtrak Police

That's just bizarre. Companies with their own police force. I was also surprised to see many American universities have police forces.

In many countries that would be considered a major abuse of power, never mind whether the companies are owned by the government or private investors.

It's technically partially/largely publicly funded, isn't it?

Yeah I ride Amtrak, a fellow passenger told me they lost a lot of funding though, so now they share the tracks with another company. Not sure of the details entirely though. At least down in Florida anyway.

That's somewhat accurate, but not really anything recent. Amtrak only owns the track in some parts of the Northeast Corridor between DC and Boston. In the rest of the country, they are using track owned by freight companies, and the passenger trains often get prioritized below the freight trains. Especially when freight traffic increases.

Interesting, because the law demands that Amtrak get priority, to the extent that the railroads have sued Amtrak trying to reduce the strictness of the law, as they've been abusing it.

http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/blogs/frank-n-wilner/amt...

Hah. So, the thing is, Amtrak gets priority over freight trains so long as it is running according to schedule. Amtrak essentially never runs according to schedule -- many of its trains have 0% on-time performance -- so the freight trains end up getting priority, making Amtrak even later, and so on ad nauseam. Positive feedback loop.

And that is why Amtrak is the most unreliable form of passenger transportation in the US, west of the Appalachians. I was once delayed 24 hours from Denver to Chicago. That wasn't even waiting in a station for the train to arrive. It was twenty-four hours, stuck on a siding in the middle of nowhere, staring at the agriculture, as train after train of freight passed us by.

Never again. If you travel on land, and can't drive yourself, take a bus. If you want luxury accommodations, buy two seats.

In some cases, Amtrak (along with the states) runs their own passenger trains, like Amtrak California. The Capitol Corridor in California, and the Cascades in the Northwest are decent, if agonizingly slow. Though you'd literally have to pay me (a railfan) money to take the longer, overnight trains like the Coast Starlight (like the cost of a private room and bath).

I hope you at least had air conditioning.

I took Amtrak once and every time we stopped in the middle of nowhere, the AC stopped as well. I've never used Amtrak since.

1 billion/yr since 1971, but may have stopped in 2014

It's not only the funding; it's largely controlled by Congress as well. Congress dictates what routes it has to operate, on what terms it has to operate them, and virtually everything else that the supposed "company" does. It not being a government agency is a pretty thin fiction.

It's not unusual for countries to have "transport police" on railways, as they cross a large number of individual jurisdictions.

The huge difference is that in most other countries the transport police are autonomous from any single actor and not part of or beholden to a single corporation.

Amtrak is defacto a government agency, calling it a corporation is a bit of rhetorical overkill. And since Amtrak is responsible for all long distance train travel in this country, and its infrastructure, why not have its own police force?

Most every major railroad has a police force.

Only BNSF and UP, from what I remember (in the US).

Nope, plenty more...

CSX: http://www.csx.com/index.cfm/community/csx-police-department...

NY MTA: http://web.mta.info/mta/police/

Norfolk Southern: http://www.protecttheline.com/ns_police.php

Canadian Pacific: http://www.cpr.ca/en/safety/cp-police-service

Interesting, forgot about CSX, though I don't count transit police in the same category as police for freight rail-freight being genuine private companies as opposed to public transit agencies.

The world is so big...

Is that a good thing? Why not have a Federal Rail Transport Police? I'm honestly not sure how I feel about a bunch of for profit organizations all having their own police force, but I'm willing to be convinced it's a good idea.

Something about the phrase $COMPANY Police just makes me uncomfortable.

The Federal government generally stays away from general police duties, because most of the laws typically enforced by the police are state laws. When the Feds operate police forces, it is scoped to a specific institution or place. The VA, GSA, US Mint, etc operation police forces oriented towards federal property.

I think it makes sense for railroads to have police, as the crimes that affect them are multi-jurisdictional by nature and specific to the railroad. Colleges are similar in many ways... US Marshalls + pinkertons provided security to railroads in the 19th century. Professional police alleviate many of the abuses that inevitably happen with security people.

I get a little uncomfortable with private police not tied to an institution. When I was in vacation in South Carolina, the resort rent-a-cops were sworn officers... that sounds like a way to cover up crime to me.

Even commuter systems do. Chicago proper has the Chicago Transit Police, and the suburban system (Metra) has its own police as well.

How does it differ from other corporations with government investors?

These companies exist to be able to operate at a loss to serve a greater benefit to the public, but giving them more power than that doesn't really seem like it would be in the public's interest.

This "company" exists because it was created by Congress, and part of the law that created it also created the police force.

Of some relevance, as it's topics, Amtrak was just before the Supreme Court, debating whether or not they were a "private company" or a "government agency" (to put it in a nutshell, anyway).

The Supreme Court found that they were much more like a government agency than like a private company, despite their assertions to the contrary.

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/department-of-tra...

In the UK, Cambridge and Oxford have their own police force.

Oxford doesn't any longer, according to the Wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_University_Police

I thought Oxford University disbanded their police force years ago.

Cambridge and Oxford are public institutions that predate most of our government, not companies. (Heck, they're older than the very concept of a joint-stock corporation)

Cambridge and Oxford have their own police force.

That is true on a technicality, at least for Cambridge. Cambridge University has the University Constabulary[1], and for historical reasons its members really do have the powers of constables, though only within a few miles of the traditional centre of Cambridge.

In reality, they are primarily a ceremonial unit and occasionally useful for public order purposes at university events. If anything serious goes wrong, it's going to be regular police officers who come and arrest the guilty parties, and in any event, anyone charged with criminal behaviour in connection with the university will be tried in the same courts as everyone else and prosecuted by the same public authorities as anyone else.

Oxford and Cambridge both go back a long way, and it's true that there have have been some surprising and/or amusing laws relating to them as a result. However, like most widely reported antiquated laws in the UK, a lot of them are either myths or long-since repealed. For example, every summer, we get a few students doing silly things while under the influence and then learning to their cost that the old chestnut about police officers needing permission to enter the grounds of a university college isn't actually going to stop police officers coming in and arresting them.

Pro-tip: If you're ever visiting the Cambridge colleges, be nice to the porters. They are the traditional gatekeepers of the colleges, the role is widely respected for the support they give both students and staff, and for the most part they are very friendly and helpful. However, a surprising number of them are doing it as a change of direction following a distinguished career in the military or police services, and they can be much scarier than the University Constables if anyone makes trouble...

[1] http://www.proctors.cam.ac.uk/directory/constabulary

> many American universities have police forces

I attended a small private university (in the news recently, for the wrong reasons), and their "police" (aka public safety) force was almost completely on a power trip. I once was asked if they could search my car (with zero due cause), to which I refused. The "officer" verbally escalated the situation until it was obvious he was going to "search" my car or cause me significant problems. I acquiesced. I was later questioned by administrative authority why I refused and my refusal was used as leverage.

Let's leave policing to police.

Campus police may have similar (or the same) training as state police[1], apparently.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campus_police#United_States

I wish. Most of this force is criminal justice students, with a few GAs, and a few professional supervisors.

I have heard they have a pretty good collaboration with local municipal police, so anything happening on the campus could be passed off to them if jurisdiction issues arise.

It depends on whether or not the campus police can arrest and carry firearms. If not, then yes, its usually unarmed students and employees.

I'm sure it varies by department/university, but the police at my not-very-big urban university had it's own force comprised of sworn county police officers. That empowered them to give speeding tickets on the public streets through campus, and they were able to have very good response times to campus emergencies. I never had negative contact with them, but that's anecdotal.

The medical campus had emergency buttons on blue poles, and if you pressed one, you'd get like 4 or 5 emergency responses. Campus police, city police, and 2 or 3 of the hospitals had security or police on site.

> my refusal was used as leverage

What happened to:

"The law presumes all innocent of crime until proven guilty." (Source: Law Reports of the Supreme Court of Ohio, 1835)

"Terrorism" happened. And all the liberties went under the bus.

I'm under the impression that campus police departments were mostly set up by late 1960's, and that is when they established their current ways of working.

You are not being tried in a court under the ruleset of an individual state, the fed, etc. You are under the prosecution of a private entity and their private police force, which has no obligation to follow rules of state run police.

The only reason they should care about the law of the land is when they themselves are violating it, and there is no law that says "all private police and prosecution must also abide by innocent until proven guilty".

The actions of university police are very dependent on how they are set up. There are two categories:

1) Those that are glorified private security firms

2) Those that are actual police with authority to arrest and investigate.

If you go to a school with type (1), they are much more likely to violate these rights as they have no real investigative authority outside the university judicial system. You can sometimes have issues with (2) if they know they will just be referring your case to the internal university judicial system, but they are often more professional in getting any evidence cleanly.

In a real court, refusal to allow a search doesn't create probable cause and it can't be used against you.

But colleges don't follow due process.

What "significant problems" was he threatening you with?

He did not explicitly threaten me. However, because the administration pretty much just listens to what public safety says, things like enrollment were potentially at stake.[0,1] I was not willing to trade those potentials for a search that I knew would result in nothing.

[0] This is evidenced by the fact that my initial refusal was brought up later in a meeting with the administration.

[1] Imagine with me: officer assumes that my refusal implies possession of banned substance, uses refusal to file a report in that vein, two days later I'm force to prove to the administration that I didn't have the banned substance at the time. That's obviously impossible.

Edit: grammar.

I think you were bullied with empty threats.

My experience was the opposite. Campus police were generally on the students' side. It probably had something to do with the school being in a fairly high crime rate area.

To their chagrin, their job mostly consisted of catching people breaking the strict campus conduct policy as opposed to dealing with real problems.

My public state school had their own police force. The actual University-paid officers weren't actually allowed to arrest anyone though. The 'real' cops were the city cops on the University beat.

A lot of state universities (not community colleges) have a police force for jurisdictional purposes.

State universities such as University of Central Florida are owned by the State of Florida, operated on state property (as opposed to county or city property), and thus fall out of the jurisdiction provided by city and county police forces. The university police officers are full police officers, with the same requirements as local police, every ticket they write can be challenged in the court of law (not the university administration). The University Police can request assistance from local LEA, such as bomb squad or SWAT. In recent years, a mentally unstable student placed multiple bombs around UCF, a campus of 60k+ students on a square mile, UCF PD stopped the individual, but called in OCSO to clear the bombs.

Yeah it seems to be the norm for universities in Florida. FSU has a police department that is an extension of the Tallahassee police department. My understanding is that FSUPD officers are TPD officers but work exclusively on the university campus. Their jurisdiction does extend outside the university grounds if needed but usually, they ask the TPD or the sheriff department to investigate off campus incidents.

It seems even the University of Miami (a private school) has a police force that is empowered by the local city.

That's a bit of a reactionary attitude, and frankly, one that is ultimately pro-authoritarianism. Police are a bureaucracy, like any other, and when you try to put a monolithic bureaucracy across not just a city, but entire self-contained institutions, you either have to have hired the most flexible, nuanced police officers ever, or you have police officers applying mentality appropriate for one beat and entirely inappropriate or excessive for another. This is why we have city police and not just county sheriff departments. This is why we have county sheriffs and not just state police. This is why we have state police and not just the FBI running everything.

If you believe that the same police that deals with city and urban issues would also be as effective in dealing with the same environment of a (usually cloistered) university, then you have way too much faith in bureaucracies.

I'm not aware of a legal definition of "police" that prevents private corporations from claiming to have a "police force." Seems to me it's marketing and security theater- use the word to obtain "respect" (fear?) from the public; demonstrate (theatrically) that the company "cares" about safety. (That said, Amtrak isn't exactly a private corporation...)

Basically, regardless whether it's an Actual Police force, or a pretend one, you need to be aware of your rights and never acquiesce simply because you "have nothing to hide."

In the US sworn law enforcement officers have legal powers that private security does not, such as the authority to make arrests. Private security can't call itself police, impersonating a police officer is a crime.

"Police impersonation is an act of falsely portraying oneself as a member of the police, for the purpose of deception."

"...for the purpose of deception" being the operative phrase. Campus "police" aren't attempting to deceive anyone, they're attempting to enforce university rules.

IANAL, but deception here means, to convince someone that you're a sworn law enforcement officer, which is what a private security service would be trying to do. The exception is there so that for example an actor dressed as a police officer, or someone in a halloween costume, is not a criminal because they are not trying to convince a member of the public that they truly are a police officer.

Don't worry. That's just the first step towards the creation of Corporate Congress.

"Companies with their own police force."

Railroads in the US have had police forces for a long time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_police

These institutionalised police have a long and sordid history of covering up crimes that would embarrass the places that employ them (to name a specific example, rape, has been VERY covered up by US University police).

Railroads have had police for 100+ years. Logistically, it makes a ton of sense. Who would be the primary responder to incidents on or around a train or associated infrastructure?

It is unfortunate that this model has been extended to gated communities, universities and datacenters.

Its like how airports (often termed "port authorities") have cops. Its not strange that infrastructure has its own police.

Government.

Simply put, the most amazing duplicator of work effort ever seen. Our local transit authorities have their own police forces as well, to add onto city, county, and state, forces.

don't even get started with assistance programs.

Government could be so much less expensive and oppressive with consolidation of duplicate work. Less oppressive because the myriad of over lapping services obfuscates the real impact.

Okay, you start a company that has quite of bit of real estate. You have some break-ins, unruly customers, thieves, harassers of women and other creepers, etc and everytime you call the local police. They take forever to come and don't do anything helpful other than file a report and remind you that, yes, they are unionized and don't have to do anything for you. Got a problem with this? Call the police union and the mayor's office. Now what? Do you let your investment and customers take on a lot of risk by a handful of criminals or you deploy your own security services? If I ran any company with this amount of real estate, I'd want my own armed guards. It would be crazy to expect the local municipal knuckleheads to do anything but absorb donuts and file reports.

It blows my mind how much pro-police stuff I see on HN and reddit when it comes to discussions of private security and gun law enforcement. The reality is that the police look out for their own, have their own agendas, have their own politics, etc and that rarely fits in with our ideas of law and order.

As far as the "most countries" argument goes, there's no shortage of private security in those countries, they just don't use the term "police" like we do. Not to mention, in the US, gun ownership is trivial, so the ability to shoot up a school or a train is within the means of any weirdo who wants to. Thus the need for armed security.

Ford, IBM, and other large firms have internal security departments, some of whom are sworn officers.

Train companies have historically had their own police forces due to the variety of locations they pass through and, at least in the US, the distance between the train and locations with police forces.

This is true in many countries however many have also merged railroad police in with whatever their federal police organization is. A historical example is Bahnpolizei in Germany. Interestingly enough, all Swiss railroad employees have limited police powers.

What countries have never had private railroad police? All the major countries I could come across seem to have had them at some point.

It's actually quite common throughout the world for railroads to have their own police force.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_police

I live in Michigan and the state grants private police, "misdemeanor arrest authority while on active duty, on their employer's premises and in full uniform." http://www.michigan.gov/mcoles/0,1607,7-229-41626_42413---,0...

Edit/ I should mention, in my post, that there is some licensing required to become a private police force /Edit

I worked at a biopharma that had a private police force.

Who should provide security for Amtrak?

A mixture of private security firms, local police and a Federal Rail Transport Police, depending on the exact situation?

I would like to surprise you. Please check this out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_police

Most rail companies have these. They have an interesting history, from evolving out of the Pinkertons in the 1800s, to cracking hobo skulls in the 1930s, all the way up to today where they've been practically deputized into the DHS.

I went to UPenn and they had an enormous private police force. It may sound dystopian but it was actually awesome. Penn Police were nice, well-trained, and always looking out for the students. They did what it took to keep everyone safe in an area of Philadelphia that is not traditionally desirable.

It's also amazing to see Penn Police go from friend mode to cop mode. There were a few armed robberies on campus (non-student criminals) and the Police went from "nice guy in yellow waving on the corner" to "guns drawn behind the squad car" in seconds. They definitely saved lives every year.

Does anyone have information on how or if it is possible to refuse giving ID to Amtrak and still get tickets?

This was a big problem for me a few years ago... my drivers license expired. While I waited for the new one in the mail, I decided to take the train instead. They gave me a lot of shit, and I'd rather have told them that what they were asking was illegal.

> Does anyone have information on how or if it is possible to refuse giving ID to Amtrak and still get tickets?

Oddly, I can't remember anyone ever asking me for my ID on the train - just the ticket. And if you purchase the ticket online, you can print it out either at home or at a kiosk with just the credit card or confirmation number.

> what they were asking was illegal.

Are you sure it is? They're a private company - on what basis is it illegal?

> They're a private company

They are structured as a for-profit corporation, but they are a creation of a specific federal law, funded by the federal government as its sole active investor, and created as a federalization of the failing passenger rail industry.

They are very much an organ of the government.

Incidentally, the Supreme Court recently confirmed this in Department of Transportation v. Association of American Railroads, by a vote of 9-0.

It might be different between the Northeast Corridor and other Amtrak routes; I remember when they introduced the ID requirement a few years ago it was somehow rolled out more thoroughly on the Northeast Corridor. (I think I may have been asked for ID on the Lake Shore Limited and not on the Capitol Corridor.)

I don't recollect being asked for my ID while riding Amtrak on the Northeast Corridor in the last 2 years. I don't even print the stubs anymore - I just use the Amtrak app / Passbook on my phone to display my ticket.

Same here -- I take the NEC every month or so and have never been asked for my ID in around 3 years.

I was once asked for my AAA card when using that discount on the regional, but even that is extremely rare.

It's not asked on the train, it's asked when you buy the ticket at the window. If you use your CC, they then have id info presumably.

There are geographical differences.

Once in the South, I was fine just with an online receipt. Another time, going from LA to SF, I had to buy another ticket because my name was misspelled(seriously).

As recently as 2012, I was riding no the Northeast Corridor, usually out of Philadelphia, without showing ID. I just get the tickets from the kiosks, as far as I can remember they just needed a credit card.

I think maybe the tickets said something about "you may need to show ID to the ticket guy on the train", but I never had that happen.

A credit card is id, for all intents and purposes.

Never asked for my ID. I did have to sign my ticket once, which is perhaps the most theatrical of all security theater.

I have flown with expired ID. They tell me it's expired, I say sorry I was busy, then they say ok. They don't seem to make a big deal of it if you don't.

http://www.amtrak.com/passenger-identification

Nope. And why would it be illegal? AFAIK there is no law requiring business to provide services anonymously.

Another anecdote to throw in. I have travelled the world round, and not once in my many college DC-NYC Amtrak trips, before, during, and after ID and bag check requirements get checked. This over the course of 4 years of college and working in the Beltway area with at least one trip a year.

I expected more serious, but security was as strict as a DC-NYC Chinatown bus.

To quote Saturday Night Live: "Amtrak, the only way to travel ... when you smoke weed!"

http://snltranscripts.jt.org/04/04fupdate.phtml

They also bleed taxpayer money each time a traveler orders a hamburger:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/03/us/politics/amtrak-lost-83...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com