A Nude Awakening — the TSA and Privacy

DIplomatic writes "The Oklahoma Daily has a well-written editorial about the current state of airport security. Though the subject has overly-commented on, this article is well worth the read. Quoting: 'The risk of a terrorist attack is so infinitesimal and its impact so relatively insignificant that it doesn't make rational sense to accept the suspension of liberty for the sake of avoiding a statistical anomaly. There's no purpose in security if it debases the very life it intends to protect, yet the forced choice one has to make between privacy and travel does just that. If you want to travel, you have a choice between low-tech fondling or high-tech pornography; the choice, therefore, to relegate your fundamental rights in exchange for a plane ticket. Not only does this paradigm presume that one's right to privacy is variable contingent on the government's discretion and only respected in places that the government doesn't care to look — but it also ignores that the fundamental right to travel has consistently been upheld by the Supreme Court. If we have both the right to privacy and the right to travel, then TSA's newest procedures cannot conceivably be considered legal. The TSA's regulations blatantly compromise the former at the expense of the latter, and as time goes on we will soon forget what it meant to have those rights.'"

Comments

Re:Stop using risk as basis of argument

[lgw]

We know the rate of attacks before these measures. The 80s was a busy time for airplane-related terrorism, with a few hundred affected in peak 5 years IIRC (either killed, or held hostage for a considerable time). It's reasonable to conclude that with just the old-style metal detector, and X-Ray for baggage, the death toll would be less than 100 per year. Per that recent Cornell study, there are about 600 deaths per year now from people who choose to drive to avoid the hassle of flying. Is that not enough data to make the judgement to remove the TSA, even setting aside the (more important IMO) concerns about liberty and dignity?

Also, for all the security theater, there's still quite minimal security for food trucks and maintenance workers and the like. We continue to harden the front door, but the back door is unlocked (and even so, there are so few incidents).

Re:Some People

[Paracelcus]

I'm old and not the most robust specimen these idiots have ever messed with, but I have a secret weapon, I wear an incontinence undergarment (diaper) and the next time I'm not going to clean myself before going through (I'm gonna be real pissy) and I even may let it fester for a while, who knows maybe I'll make em puke!

I'm NOT kiddin!

Re:He had me until...

[fyngyrz]

We were attacked from Afghanistan

Wait, what? Of the 19 hijackers, 15 were Saudi, 2 from UAE, 1 was Egyptian, and one was Lebanese. The funding came from Saudi Arabia, and continues to ome from Saudi Arabia from this day, as current US diplomatic cables explicitly lay out (the money quote: "Saudi donors remain the chief financiers of Sunni militant groups like Al Qaeda.") Afghanistan (and Iraq) had absolutely nothing to do with anything about 9/11 other than being places we could bomb the hell out of without compromising our petroleum supplies.

And before you start spouting any of that "but Al Qaeda was in Afghanistan" silliness, they're in a score of other countries too, most notably Saudi Arabia, where the attacks actually came from.

Re:Some People

[c6gunner]

Pure nonsense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings#2000s

Stop making shit up.