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

Re: Also

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

Actually, the notion that "if it's good here, it's good everywhere".... THAT was the line of reasoning that wasn't relevant.

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

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Border search is not for safety.

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

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

Because you say so...

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

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

When I present someone else's opinion, then I'll cite it. Moron.

Re: Also

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

Here's an idea: How about presenting some **facts** instead of your opinion?