Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
will give up any freedoms because they are "supposed to" in order to "be safe".
Other people will argue that speed limits and income tax are a violation of their natural born freedoms and need to be abolished.
Most people just want a sane middle ground. Too bad the noisy people get all the results.
People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both. - Benjamin Franklin
and has always been about making people feel secure.
this signature has been removed due to a DMCA takedown notice
In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, John Pistole said they can't profile because it might not be Constitutional. As opposed to all the other things they're doing which might not be constitutional.
Senator Chuck Schumer proposed a bill to make it illegal to redistribute porno-vision image. Wrong problem, wrong answer. How about: it is illegal and unconstitutional to generate porno-vision images or perform an enhanced patdown without reasonable suspicion or probable cause.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
It's not about anything other than money. Follow the money. EOM
Stoping a terrorist with a bomb at a crowded TSA security checkpoint is too late.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
Benjamin Franklin said it best, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
It used to be that there were three different tests for determining whether some government action that, on the face of it, appeared to violate one's rights, was nevertheless permissable. There was the "rational basis" test, which allowed the government to perform the rights violation if it could show there was some rational basis for doing so. There was the "strict scrutiny" test which insisted the government have some compelling interest in doing whatever the law was doing, and that there be no better way to do it. This was applied to certain rights considered particularly fundamental, like freedom of speech, religion, and the press. And there was the "heightened scrutiny" test somewhere in between, which tended to show up in equal protection cases.
Now we have the "irrational basis" test, replacing all three, which says that if the government can come up with any scenario where allowing their violation might be good, or any scenario where protecting the right implicated might cause harm, no matter how implausible and farfetched, the government's action is allowed.
Personally I find strict scrutiny to be insufficiently strict, and prefer the "rights are rights" test, but I'm one of those wild-eyed radicals.
'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.
Your fancy statistics and rational thought got no place in American politics and national policy. Not these days anyway. Right now Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin are more popular than Stephen Hawking and James Watson. Good luck preaching about statistics to the populace that is justifying these privacy violations with fear!
My work here is dung.
Inasmuchas everything has to be built somewhere, saying things are pork is not sufficient to prove that's the only reason they're being done.
It's the wrong part of the election cycle for that sort of hope.
Two months ago this would have made for interesting politics.
Now, lame-duck congress, weakened party of the President, and 22 months until the next election, it'll be old news and nobody will give a damn before anything engages people in their choices.
The writer of the article -- which despite Slashdot's implication, is not in The Daily Oklahoman but in the University of Oklahoma student newspaper -- makes several valid points, and I fully agree with his conclusion. But he couldn't hide his bias:
I know I'm going to anger my fellow Green Party members with this, but a little bit of history is relevant. We were attacked from Afghanistan. They made themselves a target. The fact that President Bush was to afflicted by his ADHD to focus on one war at a time, causing massive failure in Afghanistan, doesn't negate the fact that we had the right (and even international support of that right) to invade the country.
Sure, it's not fair to paint the entire article by this one off-putting statement. But it diminishes the argument greatly -- it's a Godwin effect. If I were to, say, repost it on Facebook, its effect would be negated by a reply saying "This loser thinks we shouldn't have fought the terrorists in the first place".
It sounds like the student has been in a debate class at some point. He should have known better.
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
Risk management is exactly what the TSA isn't doing. They are taking a past threat and building security they *think* would protect the current system from it. Only, that's not really what they're doing.
If we had learned anything from 911 planes would takeoff manually, land and fly on autopilot with a remote operator ready to take over in case of automation failure. A co-pilot who can only take control if the remote override is toggled would suffice to prevent the entire situation of flying bomb. Now you think we can't do that? We can put a missile through a window at 500 feet above the ground, we can fly a large lumbering bird through clear skies to a known destination safely and eliminate the threat. We don't want to do that, since it would mean "the terrists" won. Instead we put on a kindergarden play and let strangers touch our no-no places.
And WWII warfare was not security theater, it was misdirection. Totally different. The TSA is telling the world what they're doing is real security, they're buying real security devices and creating completely irrelevant measures.
And yes there is nothing currently in place to stop another rectum bomber. And yes, we know what the risks are without these measures. We flew hundreds of thousands of flights since air liners started to be used as a weapon of terror in the 70s.
As a security professional I must say what the TSA does is a mockery of real security.
The plain fact is you can determine how needed this security is by dividing the cost by the lives it saves. If it comes out over $X million/head it is useless, because that money could save more lives applied elsewhere. What the risks are can be analyzed and are. At this moment the risk is so low, that we would be better off without the security and spending a tenth of that money on, healthcare, fixing potholes, inspecting food products, any of that would give more lives saved per dollar spent.
We are spending billions on something that kills less people per year than farm animals. Would you support spending billions a year to protect farmers from their livestock?
Of course, the odds of getting killed by a terrorist are less than one in 60 million.
The TSA claim their searches are 'reasonable'. Then why do they say that congressman don't have to go through it? If it reasonable, then everyone should have to do it.
They consistently say things like "You give up your rights when you buy the ticket."
No. Our rights do NOT go away. The law is clear - the rights remain. The definition of reasonable is what changes. And no reasonable parent man would allow their 14 year old girl pictured nude or fondled. Similarly, no reasonable person would allow the searches the TSA has demanded. This includes the basic stuff and the more viable junk like harassing women for traveling with breast milk, or Armed US soldiers traveling with rifles (OK - let them go) and nail clippers (NO! YOU CAN'T HAVE IT. GIVE IT HERE.), stealing watches, cash from purses, etc..
The TSA has NEVER, not ONCE caught an actual terrorist planning on committing a hijacking that they were not previously given the name. Not once has any metal detector or pat down discovered a terrorist that we were not already looking for.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Please mod up insightful (since we have no "succint")!
Let's take this just a bit further, btw:
Say a terrorist for some reason decides to take over a plane with a bomb, either for traditions sake, or because he is misinformed.
If he manages to get on the plane, his death toll will be rather low - the chance of killing more people than are at the plane are miniscule.
If he is discovered, he can detonate where he is and kill more people.
So, the TSA procedures are far more likely to help the terrorist kill more people.
IAIFARSIJDPOOTV - I Am In Fact A Reality Star; I Just Don't Play One On TV
I'm astounded that these two issues are seperated, and yet, no one looks beyond the surface to see what it's REALLY about... Privacy.
I'm sure the same people calling for Assange to be hanged are the same people that also say "if you've got nothing to hide..." about going through an airport scanner. They want to have that nice cozy feeling that the nanny state is protecting *them*.
So, they don't want to hear about Wikileaks, and they want to be seen naked at the airport *if* they think that'll make them sleep soundly at night.
This is about privacy. And if the average citizen can't expect any at the airport, why the hell should the government think it deserves *any* privacy? When you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares into you.
So Wikileaks and Airport scanners. Two great tastes that taste great together! Too bad the government doesn't get the irony of being so upset about Assange while they strip away our rights. Too bad the media doesn't get it either. These two events are happening at the same time and both are about an expectation of privacy.
Maybe if the government got rid of the scanners, Wikileaks would calm down.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
You are incorrect. I didn't like it before but it was primarily a nuisance. Now they've instituted new policies that violate my mores. You can argue all day that I'm incorrect for feeling the way I do (it's already been done above) but the bottom line is that I experience these things on a visceral level. I'll take my shoes off, put my laptop in it's own bin, fit all my gel and toothpaste in a little bag, etc. It's stupid and annoying but I can deal.
When I'm told my choices are to either be photographed naked or be felt up, I start losing the ability to be detached and unemotional. When it's my kids that are facing this choice then I'm really upset. It's the culture I grew up in that these things are completely wrong. I've spent time explaining to my children that there are places where no one is to ever touch them, that if they do they are to tell me immediately. Now I'm supposed to let some flunky with TSA do it to me right in front of them, and to them as soon as they turn 12.
Feel free to mock my upbringing all day, I can't go back in time and grow up in a completely different culture.
And if anyone could show that any of it makes sense or is effective - I'd take a stab at trying to change the way I think about it. But since the whole things is a bad joke, I'll stick with trying to change the policy rather than myself.
So is it all because there's a democrat in the Whitehouse? No - that's ridiculous. I voted for that man. I voted for Napalitano when she ran for Governor of AZ. She did a good job. Is it "prurience"? If you want to put it that way but I'm not sure why that's something that should be thrown aside just because you have a different set of values.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
9/11 killed a few thousand people...far less than die every year on our roads. The property damage was signifigant...but less than we've been spending on the TSA and our nation building. Osama knew the American people had an absurd expectation that their government's foreign policy could never come home to roost in that way. Who knew that training killers to stir up civil strife and kill other people backed by our enemy in a third nation would come back to bite us in the ass! Everyone over-reacted after 9/11 and we've been punked like nobody has been punked before...by ourselves.
Blar.
You make a pretty stupid point ... poorly. The two have nothing relevant in common.
I'm sure the same people calling for Assange to be hanged are the same people that also say "if you've got nothing to hide..." about going through an airport scanner. They want to have that nice cozy feeling that the nanny state is protecting *them*.
So, they don't want to hear about Wikileaks, and they want to be seen naked at the airport *if* they think that'll make them sleep soundly at night.
This is pure speculation. There's no necessary relationship between those who feel individuals who knowingly receive and publish state information should be prosecuted and those who are willing to trade their inalienable rights for an unproven state-mandated security theater... aside from a possible "moran" overlap. Imagining a strong correlation between the two just marks you as someone as equally clueless and judgmental as your hypothetical masses.
So Wikileaks and Airport scanners. Two great tastes that taste great together! Too bad the government doesn't get the irony of being so upset about Assange while they strip away our rights. Too bad the media doesn't get it either. These two events are happening at the same time and both are about an expectation of privacy.
Maybe if the government got rid of the scanners, Wikileaks would calm down.
State-protected secrets have nothing to do with an US citizen's inalienable rights. Associating the two actually trivializes the latter. A citizen's rights are an entirely different class of untouchable entity; the US should put everything on the line, including its secrets, to protect those rights. Its failure to do so in some cases (DUI, TSA, etc.) is worthy of a substantial amount of criticism.
Your tone of "hypocritical American pundits getting their just desserts" is another pathetic symptom of the disdain, disrespect, and political infighting that compromised our rights in the first place.
In my opinion, I think you should be permitted to carry anything you can legally carry in any public place on an airplane.
Also, the TSA should become an educational service for airline employees. Train all airline staff how to defend the plane, give them the ability to arrest and detain unruly passengers. Lock the cockpit, make it bullet proof,and arm the pilots.
Once you do that, any terrorist would be INSANE to try anything on a plane. You'll have passengers who have pocket knives, multi-tools, etc on them. Airline staff that can actually do something, and armed pilots in a protected location who can all stop the "bad guys".
Empower the passengers and crew, because for everyone who won't do anything, there that many who would do something as simple as stick out a foot, slide out their carry on bag or smack 'em with their Macbook to thwart it.
Make America grate again!
It seems to me that by perpetuating this ridiculous paranoia of terrorist attack, and the subsequent removal of our rights, freedoms and privacy, our own governments continue to reward the terrorists with much greater victories than they could ever possibly achieve on their own.
But to me it's absurd to claim that we should drop security measures that may be preventing terrorist attacks because of the rate of said attacks being so low. As in, we have no idea how likley they are wihtout these measures.
Well, since 9/11 I've been taking care to always carry my lucky rabbit's foot when I travel. We have no way of knowing how likely terrorist attacks would be if I didn't have my rabbit's foot.
Seriously, though, there IS a way to determine the effectiveness of security protocols. We can enumerate potential attack vectors, examine each one's potential cost and likelihood of success, examine the various threat mitigation options available, evaluate their expected effectiveness and then test them to determine their actual effectiveness against the postulated attack vectors. We can also look at the potential damage of various attacks and factor that into the overall risk management strategy.
Doing that sort of analysis on my rabbit's foot would quickly show that it doesn't mitigate any real risks. I may find it comforting, but that's all.
Doing that sort of analysis on the TSA's security procedures shows roughly the same, for exactly the reason the author of the article mentions: TSA security is reactive, while terrorism is innovative. There's a wide, wide world of possible attacks... far more than we could possibly defend against with any specific set of countermeasures. For every threat vector successfully mitigated by the TSA's procedures, there are dozens more that are ignored. The article mentioned one very simple, obvious and already-proven method of completely bypassing the pat-downs and backscatter scanners -- body cavities. Unpleasant, yes, but very workable.
And that doesn't even get into the question of whether or not the TSA countermeasures successfully prevents the specific attacks they're supposed to guard against. Witness Adam Savage's experience of passing through the backscatter x-ray machine with a pair of 12-inch razor blades. Even more to the point, the TSA has more or less admitted that it doesn't run penetration tests against its procedures because when it does the penetration is usually successful.
So we have security measures that don't stop what they're supposed to stop, and don't even attempt to stop a whole bunch of other stuff that's just as bad. How is that any different from my rabbit's foot? Well, other than being a lot more expensive, intrusive and obnoxious.
If anything we've been doing since 9/11 is responsible for the singular lack of successful terrorist attacks, it's our investment in intelligence and police work. Especially tracking down and stomping on the money supply. In actuality, I'm not sure that the real risk even justifies THAT investment, but at least that is an approach that has some possibility of working, by getting ahead of the terrorists. Instituting additional rounds of "security" countermeasures that might, maybe, thwart the last bozo's failed attack -- which, we should note, was thwarted without the new security countermeasure, is just doing something for the sake of doing it. Like my rabbit's foot, it might make people feel better, but it won't actually make them any safer.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Frankly anyone who suggests closing air travel to save lives is a moron. More people would die in the resulting rise in car travel. Heck, the current security system already does this and it will kill ~600 more Americans every year.
The pat down or nudity are not resented for prudish reasons but for their very basic infringement on civil liberties.
This is literally a case of the cure being worse than the disease.