It's Not Trivial
21/11/10 10:01![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
paft.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsThe 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
(no subject)
Date: 22/11/10 02:05 (UTC)"Trading civil liberties"... very emotive, very dramatic, and also not necessarily agreed upon despite your assertion.
But if you're cool with not doing anything to deter increased attempts to blow you out of the sky, because after all...what could we possibly do?....
Well, that's on you.
We have to deal with the reality of what can be done in the short time before X-mas travel and millions of people are in the air, at a relative cost.
Idealism is a great thing... but we gotta look at reality too.
(no subject)
Date: 22/11/10 04:48 (UTC)People flew fine before 9/11 without all of this and people can fly now.
Not to mention, I already accidentally got a four inch pocket knife through airport security, which proves these methods do basically jack shit. If someone wanted to blow up a plane that badly, they'd find a way.
I'd prefer not to loose my civil liberties on the way though, which despite your unnecessary mocking, is what is happening here.
(no subject)
Date: 22/11/10 05:46 (UTC)and here we differ. I'd rather *not* having to bury a few hundred people.
Give me an alternative to this that can be deployed rapidly without costing billions of dollars...
People flew fine before 9/11 without all of this and people can fly now.
9/11 changed all that -- which was rather the point.
Not to mention, I already accidentally got a four inch pocket knife through airport security, which proves these methods do basically jack shit
Was it through the pat-downs and image scanners?
I'd prefer not to loose my civil liberties on the way though, which despite your unnecessary mocking, is what is happening here.
We disagree -- I dont see it as a loss of civil liberties and I *do* believe the mantra is more emotive than rational.
(no subject)
Date: 22/11/10 14:11 (UTC)This position might make sense if these new procedures were actually more affective, which they are not. People were fine going through metal detectors before and that should be fine enough now.
9/11 changed all that -- which was rather the point.
It shouldn't have.
Was it through the pat-downs and image scanners?
I went through them but the knife was in my bag... which shows that they aren't even focusing on the places where the most danger lies. They are doing all this idiotic fear theatre while letting real threats slip through. Remember, the 9/11 hijackers didn't use bombs, they used box cutters.
We disagree -- I dont see it as a loss of civil liberties and I *do* believe the mantra is more emotive than rational.
You are incorrect.
And dismissing these situations as "emotive" is pretty cold and terrifying.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40291856/ns/travel-news
(no subject)
Date: 22/11/10 16:05 (UTC)http://community.livejournal.com/talk_politics/787344.html?thread=58942864#t58942864
(no subject)
Date: 22/11/10 16:09 (UTC)I'll also mention that you may have gotten something through by accident, however, we have to ask how much stuff **doesnt** get through. You may have been the exception, not the rule -- so it seems rather, "premature" to wave away the effectiveness as nill.
Finally if we want to talk about civil liberties -- I suggest you read this:
http://community.livejournal.com/talk_politics/787344.html?thread=58942864#t58942864
(no subject)
Date: 22/11/10 18:08 (UTC)I am also not the exception. Every time I tell that knife story at least one other person in the room chimes in with their own story of something similar.
The likelihood of a plane being bombed is incredibly small. The likelihood of these measures being corrupted and people traumatized is pretty high, considering it's only been a couple months and there are already dozens and dozens of horrifying stories. As a victim of molestation myself, having someone I do not want to touch me touching me, was incredibly violating and caused me a panic attack. These procedures are not okay.
But forget it. You don't even care in the slightest. As long as you are fine with it you fail to see why it could be a problem for anyone else, despite whatever history they have concerning their body.
(no subject)
Date: 22/11/10 18:35 (UTC)I'm just unconvinced by anecdotal stories, which may or may not be true or may represent a tiny percentage of the total amount of flights that have to be monitored.
And as far as being a victim of molestation -- well, sorry about that. However, I just dont see putting an individuals personal comfort above the safety of hundreds of people.
It's not a question of caring -- it's a question of safety, and bottom line: The airline is responsible for keeping you safe, not necessarily for making sure everything is rainbows and cupcakes.
(no subject)
Date: 22/11/10 15:38 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 22/11/10 15:56 (UTC)Second, by your logic why bother to lock your doors at night -- after all, a serious crook will bypass them anyway, right? It's because you raise the bar of difficulty in carrying out these attacks.
I'm not ignoring your point, but rather am pointing out that you're not giving reasonable alternatives that would **actually** protect people in the short time they had.
The bottom line is to do their best to protect people
Also
Date: 22/11/10 15:49 (UTC)Re: Also
Date: 22/11/10 16:04 (UTC)http://resources.lawinfo.com/en/Legal-FAQs/The-4th-Amendment-and-Search-Warrants/Federal/does-the-fourth-amendment-protect-all-searche.html
While John is making a telephone call in a glass enclosed phone booth; he places a bag of cocaine on top of the phone. A police officer walking by notices the bag and arrests John for possession of a controlled substance. At trial, John tries to argue that the search of the phone booth was unreasonable because the officer lacked a warrant. This argument will fail because the court will never even get to the reasonableness of the search.
When police find a bag of cocaine on the top of a phone in a phone booth, it is not a search for Fourth Amendment purposes. It is very unlikely that John would think that a public phone booth is a private place, and even if John did, society is not willing to extend the protections of privacy to public pay phones.
Airports do not necessarily entertain an expectation of privacy -- especially if trying to protect the public
I also recommend you watch the videos that play over on the right side of the screen that talk about searches, strip searches, and expectation of privacy versus public safety.
Re: Also
Date: 22/11/10 22:19 (UTC)Searching every person going into an airport to board a plane is unreasonable. It assumes that every person is guilty on no basis.
Re: Also
Date: 22/11/10 23:09 (UTC)Re: Also
Date: 23/11/10 02:06 (UTC)Re: Also
Date: 23/11/10 02:15 (UTC)Searches at the airport are very specific, for passengers only.
That's a bit different than any time, any place, any reason...
Re: Also
Date: 23/11/10 02:18 (UTC)Re: Also
Date: 23/11/10 02:31 (UTC)First, the notion that "if it's reasonable here it's reasonable everywhere...". There are zones for smoking. There are places for drinking. There are places for speeding.
Do you argue that these should be done everywhere at all times? You may, but society does not agree with you.
In the conversation we're having, and not the one you're creating in your mind, the scenario is that everyone going onto a flight needs to be searched for public safety;
Just like everyone going into a federal courthouse enjoys a search to ensure public safety;
Just like cars crossing the border enjoy a search to try to ensure public safety.
The situation is very specific, the reasons very specific and do not apply in a "everywhere, everyone, all the time" manner. Such "reasoning" is usually a semantic game meant to confuse the issue by removing context...
I'm not interested in playing semantic games. Let's talk seriously or not at all, ok?
Re: Also
Date: 23/11/10 07:46 (UTC)Re: Also
Date: 23/11/10 15:18 (UTC)and that was what I was responding to.
Just like in the other thread -- you seem to try to assign to me the very position I am arguing *against*, or ignore the context of what led to that discussion in the first placve.
and by the way -- searching borders, courthouses and so forth: That is still covered under the 4th Amendment, although public safety ("general welfare") has to be considered against it.
So my objections are not only relevant, but VERY relevant as situations for when "unreasonable searches" are actually quite 'reasonable'.
Re: Also
Date: 23/11/10 20:48 (UTC)Having a gov't search when entering gov't property is not equivalent to having a gov't search when entering private property.
Your irrelevant objections were the smoking, drinking, etc.
Re: Also
Date: 23/11/10 20:51 (UTC)Because you say so...
and irrelevant because you say so...
But since you have problems with reading comprehension in other threads, why should this one be different??
Tell you what: Stop asserting out your ass...provide a cite or reference... or otherwise stop wasting my goddamn time.
Re: Also
Date: 24/11/10 18:35 (UTC)Re: Also
Date: 24/11/10 19:23 (UTC)