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

[kawaiimamimi.livejournal.com]

and here we differ. I'd rather *not* having to bury a few hundred people.

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

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

Read this please:
http://community.livejournal.com/talk_politics/787344.html?thread=58942864#t58942864

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

Choosing an increased risk of people getting blown up versus a search (which was *your* statement, not mine) seems rather cold and terrifying to me...

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

[kawaiimamimi.livejournal.com]

Notice how few bombings there were before these idiotic measures were implemented? These sudden changes make no sense and do not target the actual danger. Things were fine before, they should be fine now.

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.

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

Well, I do care if you've had trauma in the past.

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.