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

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

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?

[yahvah.livejournal.com]

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

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

Yah, not clicking on that.

[yahvah.livejournal.com]

Oh, okay.

[paft.livejournal.com]

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?

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

Both the shoe and underwear bombers got explosive devices onto airplanes that cannot be detected by metal scanners.

We laugh at them but the only reason they did not cause mass casualties was because they were dumb, not because the device concept was flawed.

So assume that you are correct and these scanners and pat downs are too intrusive to be permitted. They were installed with the intent of catching the kinds of explosive devices not picked up by metal detectors.

What alternative methods would be effective?

[paft.livejournal.com]

How about getting suspicious when someone on a terrorist watch list pays cash for a one-way ticket and boards without luggage?

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

That's it?

Either there's a threat worth taking seriously or there isn't.

The fact that passengers can carry items on them that can explode and that cannot be detected on a metal scanner actually poses a risk of mass casualties.

[paft.livejournal.com]

They can do this on subways, trains, and in public buildings too.

So should we have naked scanners and gropes on all public transit now? Whenever we go out in public, in fact?

[headhouse.livejournal.com]

Those aren't the same thing as airplanes. From a terrorist's perspective, and given a terrorist's goals, an airliner full of passengers is just about the most rewarding target there is, especially in proportion to the cost (in effort and material) of taking it out.

Rupturing the skin of an airplane at 30,000 feet takes a minimal amount of explosive, because the pressure differential will almost certainly take care of the rest of the destruction. So a few ounces of C4 or other explosive in the right place are all you need to create a few hundred casualties, maybe some destruction on the ground, and paralyze the entire nation's air traffic indefinitely. Do that near a holiday and you can trigger a fear reaction on the population, which helps depress the economy (along with the economic impact that grounding all those airplanes (and cargo planes, btw) has already had.

Subways don't measure up as well. You can still get mass casualties, though it'll take a lot more material (explosives or biologicals), but it's a local panic unless you manage simultaneous strikes nationwide, and even then it's limited to highly urban areas. Trains in the US are even less effective targets. Buildings? Unless you target something significant, at a significant time (Times Square on NYE, say, or a church on christmas eve), the casualties will be low in ratio to the effort, and again, it's a localized effect. Not that that's prevented things like that from being done, of course.

So, no. Your comparison is invalid.

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

Agreed.

Arguing that there are *other* soft targets so why bother with these, is fallacious.

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

This isn't even a remotely serious reply. Airplanes remain valuable targets for terrorists because of the sheer scope of the mayhem bombing or hijacking one can cause.

Are you going to keep answering all questions with questions? I've already conceded that there is a high likelihood these measures are more to look good than to do good -- but it isn't exactly a stretch to ask you what alternative technology could be used in its place if this is unacceptable.

[nikoel.livejournal.com]

The next bomb getting past security is going to be in someone's orifice. Do you think that cavity searches will be reasonable then? There has to be a line somewhere and many of this thinks these new measures already crossed it.

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

So a plane gets blown out of the air, killing hundreds of people and throwing the economy into a minor loop since people will be scared to travel... let's imagine a friend or family member is one of those losses...

because someone was afraid that their out-of-shape body could possibly been seen in an image lasting 10 seconds...


Would you still argue that although they're dead, it's better that rather than being imaged for a few seconds?

[nikoel.livejournal.com]

You can tell yourself all you want that these new machines are going to keep us safer, but it's simply not true. The terrorists are smart enough and determined enough to get a bomb in. Like I said, the next one is going to be in an orifice, so according to you, body cavity searches or full-on x-ray machines will also be necessary to keep everyone safe.

It has nothing to do with out of shape bodies and everything to do with genitals. Touching or seeing someone's genitals is simply going too far.

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

Well, that's your opinion....

If I have to get "pat down" to increase the odds of landing on the grown at a controlled rate...I dont see it as that much of a sacrifice.

You get "pat down" going into a club -- but it's too much for a plane?

I guess we dont agree on this point...

[nikoel.livejournal.com]

It's not just my opinion. People a lot smarter & more in the know than me have been saying it all over the place.

If you're cool with trading your civil liberties in for the illusion of being "safe" then so be it, but there are others of us who see the security theater for what it is & we're just not willing to give up our constitutional freedoms especially when there are more effective ways to accomplish the same goal.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

If I have to get "pat down" to increase the odds of landing on the grown at a controlled rate...I dont see it as that much of a sacrifice.

That should depend on the change in odds. For example, if the difference is from a 10% chance to a 50% chance, it might be worth it, but since the actual chance is more like from a 10% chance to a 10.5% chance, it isn't.

[spaz-own-joo.livejournal.com]

because someone was afraid that their out-of-shape body could possibly been seen in an image lasting 10 seconds...

This would be more of a point if there were any trustworthy assurance that this is how the images get handled.

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

Which is a fair concern -- and I agree we need to make sure image handling is controlled for.

*But* we also have to consider there are only a limited number of alternatives for security before Christmas season (already started now) to try to increase security...

Although you can never give 100% protection to anything -- you can make it more difficult for an opponent to reach you.

All this screaming about idealism is good and all until we have 1 or more burning fuselages on the ground with people crying... so again, the question is : Is this inconvenience really that much compared to the loss of hundreds of lives?

Some feel different...to me, I dont really care that much about a "pat down" so the answer is No.

[nikoel.livejournal.com]

Lastly, who is being dramatic here? There haven't been any actual explosions or burning fuselages, have there?

[kawaiimamimi.livejournal.com]

because someone was afraid that their out-of-shape body could possibly been seen in an image lasting 10 seconds...

Seriously? I didn't expect this from you.

Aside from the fact that if someone doesn't want to show their body they shouldn't have to, we don't know what danger these scanners pose as far as radiation concerns. And it doesn't only last ten seconds, these images have been saved before and could be saved again.

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

First, the radiation was already addressed when the scanners were first disclosed.

Second, I'm all in favor of mitigating image control and prevention from being saved...but that is something that can be done.

I hear people arguing against the scans, without giving an alternative that can prevent planes from being blown out of the air...

All the outrage is about "being groped", but little discussion about what ELSE can be advocated in the short time before the holiday season goes into full swing.

It's not enough for people to simply complain -- you need to advocate an alternative as well, and that's something I'm not hearing in these discussions.

Until an alternative is given, then my preference is to a pat down rather than hundreds of dead....

so give me an alternative....

[bikinisquad3000.livejournal.com]

Come now, most people wouldn't be able to answer this because most people are not experts on the nature, properties and detection of explosives. The only methods you and I could know for sure are possible are this type, the ones that focus on ways people can hide them on their person and not what they are. Demand an alternative from an expert by all means, but I don't think it's going to make much of a point if you can't get one from a bunch of people on LJ.

[headhouse.livejournal.com]

Ooo! Ooo! I know this one! Pick me!