It's Not Trivial

[paft.livejournal.com]

The other day someone asked me, after I’d made some passing comment about the whole TSA get-photographed-naked/be groped issue, why anyone would bother with this when there are so many other more important issues, like world poverty. “Why waste your time talking about something so trivial?” I was asked.

After thinking about it, I decided it’s not a minor issue.

This latest hamhanded policy – and its timing -- amounts to a referendum on how much intrusion officials can inflict on Americans. It’s no accident that this came up not long before the holiday rush. They’re counting on most of us being too preoccupied with getting from point A to point B to complain. After a few weeks, they hope, we’ll get used to it and accept it as the norm.



That’s really what it’s about.

So what’s next? Because rest assured, the envelope will be pushed a little further once they’ve established that we will put up with either being effectively photographed nude or strangers groping our genitals. It always is. Every time such authorities make an incursion into our privacy, it’s with solemn assurances that it will not be abused and – honest to God! – this is as far as they’ll go. Really! Cross their hearts and hope to die!

Don’t for one minute assume that wealthy and influential travelers are going to be subjected to this policy. Once it becomes established, opting out of it will become just one more cozy perk enjoyed by high end business fliers, one more little chip at the dignity of the rest of us.

No, it’s not on quite the same scale as world poverty, the nuclear arms race, unemployment, or torture. But it’s still important. It impacts us all. It forces us to confront how much of our personal privacy we’re willing to relinquish in the name of security.

At what point do we draw the line?

Crossposted from Thoughtcrimes

Comments

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Even if it's a minor issue, it's not like people are unable to address more than one issue at a time. Some issues are major, others minor. If it's a problem it's worth being discussed, don't you think?

[ygrii-blop.livejournal.com]

It's no minor issue. The government has assumed the right to humiliate and degrade us. Will we accept it or will we assert our power? I'm not optimistic about the outcome of this. We've learned to be quite docile over the last thirty years.

[mijopo.livejournal.com]

agreed, the notion that it's wrong to consider any problem as long as any larger problem remains unsolved is a silly fallacy.

[xforge.livejournal.com]

It's not a minor issue, it's not like we can't talk about more than one thing at a time, and most importantly, it's accessible - that is, it's something that has a definite solution and can be addressed via protest and verbal outrage. Raging against poverty has much the same effect as flapping a box top to redirect a hurricane.

[qnetter]

First of all, it is indeed a referendum on the issue, and many of us think this level of intrusion is acceptable.

Second, as a frequent business flier, I've established a level of trust that you haven't. So if they decide I can opt out, fine.

[paft.livejournal.com]

In other words, "I'm okay, to Hell with you."

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

Who are those 'many of us' that you're talking about? I'm a former senior flight attendant and current f.a. trainer and I can tell you there are lines that should not be crossed. And the option to opt out should always be at the table.

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

Here's another frequent biz flier who disagrees. Just because i dont mind people touching my balls it doesnt mean everyone else should think like me.

[devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com]

If there is, indeed, a referendum on the issue, it's not the one you expect:

http://blog.seattlepi.com/thebigblog/archives/228691.asp?from=blog_last3

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

And here's a point where we both agree on. Either we go all the way into totalitarian police state surveillance societies and accept that liberty is dead, or we start actually giving the idea of liberty more than lip service. There can be one or the other, not both.

[omnot.livejournal.com]

I'm upset that in a country which has a policy of not cooperating with terrorists, there is an organisation using the tactic of frightening the public into complying with their demands by making an example of individuals who do not cooperate; hauling aside people who decline to be scanned and performing an "enhanced pat down" on them in full view of waiting passengers while they cry with humiliation, have sexual assault flashbacks or scream for their mother.

That kind of coercion is terrorism by the strict definition. I think that it is the duty of Americans to refuse to cooperate with the TSA while it engages in terrorist tactics, and not to give in to their demands.

[headhouse.livejournal.com]

No, it's not a minor issue, but your perspective is warping things a bit. Airline security is a huge problem. The high potential for death and damage created by combining a pretty vulnerable airframe with the increasing destructive capacity of technology (multiplied by the thousands of flights every day) has a limited number of solutions. 1) You can make the airplanes themselves harder to damage or destroy. This isn't a fast solution, and very expensive. 2) You can try to prevent things and people from damaging the plane or the people on it. That's a faster fix, though arguably just as expensive in the long run.

(By the way, #2 is a lot more likely to be the reason that they shoved this into effect when they did. The holiday travel rush makes airplanes and airports really juicy targets for anyone interested in maximizing the damage from a terrorist attack. So, no, it's not an evil conspiracy. Yeesh.)

So how do you accomplish the second option? You intensify security screening. Ideally, DNA identity verification becomes practical, but that won't happen for a while. No database and the technology's too slow. Hell, we can't even manage that with fingerprint scans yet.

(Also by the way, this is a more likely contributor to the idea of the wealthy and influential undergoing less rigorous screening, if that is in fact a rule and not just exaggeration. I don't see anything on the websites exempting people from the scanners if they're flying business class, for example. People who are extremely successful and well-known are a lot less likely to try to blow themselves or their aircraft out of the sky. Aside from which, famous people, like the Speaker of the House, are obviously a lot easier to identify, which reduces their threat profile. Their checked luggage would be getting the same scrutiny, though, so that should make you feel better.)

Also, physical checks get more thorough and, consequently, more intrusive. And, yes, more insulting to those inclined to take offense, and there's more potential for mistakes and screwups. Combining inept TSA employees (and god I've met some dumb ones) with more complicated standards and procedures and then throwing it all into a high-volume, high-stress environment isn't always going to go well.

So it's a necessary exchange. You voluntarily (yes, it's voluntary) relinquish some privacy for the sake of convenience of travel. You shouldn't have to, but that's not the fault of the airlines or the TSA, it's the fault of the people trying to kill airline passengers and destroy the planes..

Unless they're all part of a conspiracy. Hmmm...

[nikoel.livejournal.com]

It's actually not necessary considering how ineffective the new search procedures really are. It's an infringement on our civil liberties.

There are better ways to keep us safe. (http://articles.cnn.com/2010-01-11/opinion/yeffet.air.security.israel_1_airport-security-isaac-yeffet-el-al?_s=PM:OPINION)

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

Interesting -- you offer cogent and intelligent counter points and get...nothing.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

For me, I just plan to cease air travel since the experience is all a little too North Korea for moi.

[existentme.livejournal.com]

They do something similar in North Korea?

[yahvah.livejournal.com]

Too few people are recognizing in the United States of America, "if you don't like it then you can just stay home" is a false dichotomy.

[paft.livejournal.com]

Yep.

[luvdovz.livejournal.com]

The screening isn't effective security. It's security theater. Israeli airports don't have all this bullshit, and they have a much more serious terrorist threat. They do use profiling, but it's not racial profiling as some are claiming, it's behavioral. The TSA isn't sufficiently well-trained to do proper behavioral profiling, so they spend millions on useless machines and hope they'll scare off terrorists by groping people.

Btw I'm borrowing this vid.

[qnetter]

Actually, they use intensive interviewing in their profiling, and it takes at least as long as our enhanced searches and imaging. The difference is that they have a populace that understands the threat.

[reality-hammer.livejournal.com]

Getting the machines turned off is relatively simple. World poverty, not so much.

I agree, however, that it is an issue of how much the public will endure. You can't have economic slavery without at least the trappings of chains (and public humiliation).

[dreadfulpenny81.livejournal.com]

Don’t for one minute assume that wealthy and influential travelers are going to be subjected to this policy. Once it becomes established, opting out of it will become just one more cozy perk enjoyed by high end business fliers, one more little chip at the dignity of the rest of us.

Oh, this is so good it HAS to be fattening!

Leave it to paft to assume that anyone with money is an EVIL, EVIL SPAWN OF SATAN and they're automatically going to have sway over a TSA agent by whipping out a few Benjamins and tossing them their way.

No, it’s not on quite the same scale as world poverty, the nuclear arms race, unemployment, or torture.

It's not even in the same stadium, let alone the same ball park.

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

You're not too good at snark, ya know...

[harry-beast.livejournal.com]

There is a way out of the dilemma, and that is to allow people to choose where the line is drawn. This whole difficulty arises from a collectivist insistence on making the government responsible for the level of risk individual are willing to take during air travel. Why not offer people low, medium and high risk options? Those who prefer to fly unscreened can exercise their preference for less intrusive, but riskier flights, but they would have to waive the right to complain if they suffer the consequences of their own choices.

[usekh.livejournal.com]

Considering the chaos of flight plans, airports and competing airlines and routes as is, just how do you propose on organising this?

[light-over-me.livejournal.com]

Well I think hell has frozen over because I finally agree with one of your posts, ;). It's not really a small issue at all... it's only a matter of time before similar pat downs and scanners come to train stations/subways and other forms of public transportation...and then from there, who knows. And of course it will be utterly ineffective, and terrorists will still find away, anyway.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

I'm not going anywhere for thanksgiving, so I think I might go to the airport and decline scans all day. giggity!

[existentme.livejournal.com]

Lol - 'cept you need to have a ticket to even have the privilege of that line.

Can someone please let me know

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

Is air travel a right or a privilege?

I don't know that the answer to THAT question is straightforward, but the answer to the question of these searches, is simple once you know which it is.

Re: Can someone please let me know

[existentme.livejournal.com]

Heh. Hide and wait, and soonly enough someone will be asking the same question about foot travel.

This is a virtual gold mine: yes, we need our air travel safe, so we may as well have our train and bus travel safe, and not to mention, omg, have you ever seen how many people are gathered in those stadiums every Sunday afternoon? Those scanners cost cash, and bureaucracies love to expand.

My opinion is that it is immaterial whether one or the other is a right or not - our government does not own us, or we ought not let it in any case. Therefore, strangely enough, the decision with regard to the level of intrusion we permit for illusory or actual safety is actually our decision and not its.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Wait, so they wouldn't let me use my mobile to call my lawyer (if I had any)? Is that what they do? Cos I've been to airports in several countries and there was no problem for me using my mobile anywhere except on board of the airplane.

[omnot.livejournal.com]

Dude! It's an "electronic device!" It could be a bomb! Of course they have to react to a dangerous suspect who is trying to set off a bomb by throwing you to the ground, tearing the "bomb" away and stomping their neck a few times.

It can be trickier if their walking frame, wheelchair or pram gets in the way, of course, but the TSA are up to it! They will go the extra mile to handle such dangerous situations!

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Don’t for one minute assume that wealthy and influential travelers are going to be subjected to this policy.

This is disingenuous and not a logical conclusion from the linked article. There may be other reasons to think this, but you haven't supported your conclusion here at all.

Also note that it's posts like this that show how awful your regular posts are.