[identity profile] paft.livejournal.com posting in [community profile] talkpolitics


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

(no subject)

Date: 22/11/10 02:24 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] harry-beast.livejournal.com
Aversion to profiling is the whole reason that we have such intrusive measures. For many people, it isn't an option.

(no subject)

Date: 22/11/10 15:35 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] nikoel.livejournal.com
Profiling can easily be done without needlessly harassing brown people. It's behavioral profiling we're talking about here, not racial.

(no subject)

Date: 23/11/10 02:45 (UTC)
qnetter: (Default)
From: [personal profile] qnetter
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.

(no subject)

Date: 23/11/10 02:48 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] nikoel.livejournal.com
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.

(no subject)

Date: 23/11/10 02:52 (UTC)
qnetter: (Default)
From: [personal profile] qnetter
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)

Date: 23/11/10 02:56 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] nikoel.livejournal.com
Your anecdata is irrelevant. It's the same as saying "I'm totally not racist because I have a black friend!" What I'm saying is there are a number of groups of people who DO find having a stranger grope them in the name of apparent security an unjust violation. Just because YOU don't have a problem with it doesn't mean it's not completely traumatizing for someone else.

(no subject)

Date: 23/11/10 05:01 (UTC)
qnetter: (Default)
From: [personal profile] qnetter
And what I'm saying is that there are a number of INDIVIDUALS in groups - you can't say how many any more accurately than I - all you can do is presume.

(no subject)

Date: 23/11/10 06:09 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] nikoel.livejournal.com
Not ONE person should need to feel sexually violated by their government, especially not in the supposed greatest country in the world. It is simply NOT acceptable.

(no subject)

Date: 23/11/10 16:25 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] harry-beast.livejournal.com
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.

(no subject)

Date: 23/11/10 16:40 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] nikoel.livejournal.com
Exactly.

Credits & Style Info

Talk Politics.

A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods


MONTHLY TOPIC:

Failed States

DAILY QUOTE:
"Someone's selling Greenland now?" (asthfghl)
"Yes get your bids in quick!" (oportet)
"Let me get my Bid Coins and I'll be there in a minute." (asthfghl)

June 2025

M T W T F S S
       1
2 34 5 678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30