talkpolitics | It's Not Trivial

Entry tags:

privacy

It's Not Trivial

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

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

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

I don't know that there is going to be an opt-out. If there's not, I'll gladly submit to imaging or full search the twice-a-week or so that I fly.

But if there is an opt-out, you'll take it.

This is not a matter of frequent first-class travelers having enhanced trust. It's a matter frequent first-class travelers having enhanced cash.

You're wrong. Many do not.

A first class ticket is not more expensive than coach?

I've bought first-class tickets about 1% of the time I've flown in first class. Nearly every time it's been a free upgrade.

I'm sorry, but this response is meaningless. Yeah, I've gotten free upgrades too. That does not make me a regular flyer in first class. I'm not a regular first class flyer because I cannot afford to be.

You don't know what you're talking about. I'm upgraded for free about 70% of my flights.

You're a frequent flyer. Most of us aren't.

Right. And it's that frequent flight that could establish trust. That's the point.

And you don't see a connection between money and frequent flying?

(no subject)

qnetter - 2010-11-22 02:52 (UTC) - Expand

And if there is an opt out list, and a terrorist really wants to, they'll find a way on it. Heck, when a terrorist is already flagged on watch lists and reported by his own father, and we STILL ignore it, what else will we ignore? As long as someone has the cash or proper connections, they will get on that opt out list.... and it isn't necessarily going to be just Paris Hilton.

And if there is an opt out list, and a terrorist really wants to, they'll find a way on it.</>

What's with all this fear-mongering on here of all places? Yes, I'll agree that for a while now people are fretting a plane will land a tad quicker than originaly designed, "They" would have you believe there's a terrorist around every corner and if there's a corner not taken by a terrorist then it's been taken by a paedophile!

Don't fret, it's just a control thing, see those nice, clean well educated well dressed people tend to toe the line, the great unwashed however.....

Remind me, when Yemen has been invaded, how many other countries have large quantities of Oil and or gas and will this be the next place a bomb is found on a plane from?

Or possibly - "I've been thoroughly and continuously vetted already -- have you?"

This issue is more complex than "it's intrusive" versus "no, it isn't" -- travel by airplane involves security measures and for good reason. The fundamenteal question should be more geared at are the measures being taken actually enhancing security in exchange for an acceptable level of scrutiny or are they geared at looking thorough while still leaving gaping holes that would-be terrorists can slip a case full of C4 through?

Given all the measures that have been put into place in a reactive manner in the past 10 years, I am not inclined to think this is any more than another push at looking secure instead of actually following the model El-Al established that has kept it free of actual terrorism and hijacking for decades.

It's not about being "vetted." It's about having money. I

Frequent travelers have been through screening numerous times. And yes, if they can afford it, they can subject themselves to an even more thorough check to get put on a cleared list under most proposals I've seen. To be remotely meaningful that check will be very thorough and intrusive.

What's your proposal for folks who don't travel weekly to be similarly checked and cleared?

Does that thorough check involve someone running their hands over their genitals? I doubt it.

My proposal is that these unnecessarily intrusive and humiliating approaches to security be dropped.

Does that thorough check involve someone running their hands over their genitals? I doubt it.

Neither do the scanners if one does not select to refuse the scan.

My proposal is that these unnecessarily intrusive and humiliating approaches to security be dropped.

The scanners have been installed, as described by HSA, to detect passengers trying to smuggle aboard the types of explosives we've seen in the most recent attempts to bomb commercial airplanes. These are substances that cannot be detected by metal detectors.

Assuming you drop these methods, what would you suggest can be used to detect the threats the scanners are meant to find?

M: Neither do the scanners if one does not select to refuse the scan.

Does that "thorough check" involve being photographed naked?

Probably not.

Do you intend to answer the operable question about finding the bomb materials that people *have* successfully smuggled onto airplanes? What's the substitute method for the average excursion traveler?

Specifically what cases do you have in mind?

Do you intend to the answer the question or is this going to become incredibly familiar territory where all you do is interrogate and never give anyone the courtesy of actually discussing off of your own terms?

I forgot he put it in his pocket, but he could've put it up his rectum too.

Edited 2010-11-21 20:38 (UTC)

(no subject)

malasadas.livejournal.com - 2010-11-21 20:39 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

yahvah.livejournal.com - 2010-11-21 20:39 (UTC) - Expand

What you asked was: "The scanners have been installed, as described by HSA, to detect passengers trying to smuggle aboard the types of explosives we've seen in the most recent attempts to bomb commercial airplanes. These are substances that cannot be detected by metal detectors.

I can't answer until I know exactly what "recent attempt to bomb commercial airplanes" you mean here -- what types of explosives were these and how did they get on the planes?