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

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...

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)

Some form of security is necessary. Our procedures are ineffective partially (I'd say mainly) because of the large volume of people that have to be processed through the security, leading to mistakes and inefficiency. Basically we don't take the time to do it right. And that's linked to airlines having to schedule flights the way they do to maintain profitability, and changing that will make airfares higher. Which I think is a good idea for a lot of reasons, but that's another discussion.

We should be doing it the way the israelis are doing it. But we don't have the ability for that right now, and it's arguable that this kind of methodology isn't practicable on a worldwide or even US-wide level.

Yes, I understand that, however the nude scans and freedom gropes are going way too far. Period. There is not going to be another underwear bomber. The next one will be in an orifice and then what? The only way to actually keep us safe is to profile behavior. I wasn't suggesting no security, btw.

I don't think they're really effective, either, but until and unless we adopt (or adapt) Israel's policies, I don't see that the TSA has any alternative, at least in terms of legal liability and PR.

Overall, I'd be taking the train if I were going anywhere. Much more enjoyable, overall. :)

...aaand I've overshot my quota for the word "overall" for the week.

So what train can I take from New York City if I want to visit my daughter in France?

Happily, I don't have any reason to go overseas at the moment, so I can get away with speaking only for myself regarding trains. Which is what I was doing. But a transatlantic train would be so cool.

Yeah, I'd take the train too for anything I could, I prefer trains any day. But for some things you just can't. (I agree with you a transatlantic train would be awesome, though)

Aversion to profiling is the whole reason that we have such intrusive measures. For many people, it isn't an option.

Profiling can easily be done without needlessly harassing brown people. It's behavioral profiling we're talking about here, not racial.

I object far more to being asked intrusive questions than to being touched. It's none of their business where I work, where I've been (other than what they can tell by reading my passport) or what I've done.

Even if the questions are to keep you safe?

Have you ever stopped to consider how the scanners & pat downs make women feel? Children? Rape/molestation survivors? Deeply religious people? Trans people? Cancer survivors?

Maybe not everything is about you and your privilege.

I didn't say I'd stop them - only that I would opt for physical search over interrogation.

I don't think you can speak for all women, or children, or survivors, or deeply religious people, or trans people. (For instance, I know several trans people who would have no more issue with being touched than I -- they don't view their trans status as a big secret...)

(no subject)

nikoel.livejournal.com - 2010-11-23 02:56 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

qnetter - 2010-11-23 05:01 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

nikoel.livejournal.com - 2010-11-23 06:09 (UTC) - Expand

For behavioural profiling to be effective, it cannot exempt any ethnic, cultural or religious group. There are several high profile incidents of terrorism that would not have been prevented by profiling only non-brown people.

Exactly.

Naw, I think we're solving the wrong problem. Rather than instituting pat downs and new scanners, how about if we put in a system that will ensure people associated with al Qaeda get extra scrutiny? It will suck for a few people who share the same name as folks on the list, but it's smarter than patting down 8 year old girls.

Maybe we can also get some rational way of cleaning up the watch list. Then again, as a response to a complaint by the parents of an eight year old whose parents have been trying to remove him from the terrorist watch-list since he was two, the TSA instituted a policy to fine airlines who tell a passenger they are on the list. This isn't exactly a culture of accountability.

Yeah, exactly, the way the israelis do it. Background information, ideally coupled with some sort of decent identity verification system (DNA, fingerprints, retinal scans, etc).

That issue with the watch list... I don't know if the airlines should be telling people who is and isn't on the list. What's to stop a group of terrorists from using that opening to periodically check which of them could get through security, and which ones were already flagged? There should be some efficient method of finding out why you (and the individual would have to apply for this, not a third party) are on the list, and to petition to be removed.

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

Thank you. :)

(Dear mods: See?)

And still, you get a

I'll have to be content with that, I guess.

And, by the way, all biometric checks do is shorten the waiting line, in the few places it's implemented. They do not reduce the level of search.

I was thinking more of using biometrics to verify identity, so that individuals with low threat ratings (because more information is known about them) could conceivably be subjected to lower levels of search or bypass the search entirely.

I understand - just saying that's not how they are used on boarding (but they ARE used that way for Global Entry).

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only