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.
Hopefully this TSA stuff that is now coming into the public news is enough for people to start wondering about privacy and act on it in the USofA.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
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...
There is *no* explicit right to privacy in the Constitution, or any other doctrine that the USA was founded on. There is a limitation on unreasonable search and seizure, but no explicit right to privacy.
Check out Caroline Kennedy's "The Right to Privacy". A bit dated, but still relevant.
Marco...that was Portugese.
Benjamin Franklin said it best, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
It's really bothering me, that in all these things people keep bringing up "the risk of a terrorist attack being so low" as an argument against security measures.
Being against them because of privacy concerns or basic rights, that makes a ton of sense and is a great argument. 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.
You can argue that most things are security theater and that is true. But even theater can be a deterrance, as in WWII when they used sets of false tanks and things to make the Germans think we had materials we really didn't have.
Similarily we all know you could probably slip something past security as it is today. But there's a chance to cannot as well because of all these measures, and why would someone attack if there was a decent chance they'd never get a chance to actually do anything?
Security measures have gone to far, no question. So lets make sound arguments for rolling them back to things that make the most sense. But don't pretend you know exactly what risks will be like after you change the whole system. There's no need.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
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.
Wil Shipley posted a (ficticious) interview with the TSA that I think covers the problem perfectly.
There was also a post on Reddit today that pointed out that the TSA would save more lives (statistically) if all they did was listen to people's hearts, check their blood pressure, and refer them to a doctor if it was outside the normal range.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
People seem to have picked an odd point at which to become suddenly outraged. This has been going on for years, and I've been hearing the "trade essential liberty" quote to the point that it's tattooed on my retinas.
This one seems to have provoked especial outrage, and I can't help but see it as politically driven. Your average civil-liberties-minded Slashdotter has been roughly consistent, but I feel as if for much of the population it was different when The Last Guy was in charge. Now that The Other Guy is in charge, gosh, those other civil liberties violations were Necessary to the Security of a Free State, but this one's too much.
Or maybe it's just the prurience of it all: oooooh... nekkid pictures and groping. Sounds like headline news to me.
I just don't feel like we've suddenly crossed some line, where the other rights we gave up weren't Fundamental, but these are. Americans threw a hissy fit when the Shoe Bomber and the Underwear Bomber and the Toner Cartridge Bomber managed to almost cause serious harm, but you've got two choices: either accept the occasional death-by-bombing, or the occasional massive personal intrusion. (There's also the Israeli option of spending ten times as much on security and standing in line while they quiz everybody, another unpopular stance.)
My point being... if all you've got to offer me is "I hate this", well, yeah, I knew that. When you've got an option that doesn't also generate "I hate this" from practically everybody, you've got News. Until then I feel like this story has been about biting dogs for way longer than is of any interest.
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.
Unfortunately, the message for TSA security measures are simple: "Terrorists Bad, Must Stop Them"
The message against TSA security is more difficult to understand: "4th amendment violations are not the appropriate response."
Gaining a national mindset on a complex subject requires simplicity. If you look at abortion, the choices for a view are simple "Pro-Choice" or "Pro-Life". I think the views on TSA security should be equally simple.
You are "Pro-Security" or "Pro-Liberty"
It should also be clear to everyone out there that without the "Pro-Security" propoganda, terrorism has zero effectiveness.
But it's pretty much a moot point anyways - if the terrorists acted because they hate us for our freedom, then they probably don't hate us anymore anyways.
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?
Well, it would be if the goal was actually to save the people. But if the goal is to save the aircraft, it's not. Now, consider all the things the government has not spent money on to save people: Highway deaths, smoking, fast food, avoiding foreign wars... now, what do you think it is they are most likely trying to protect here: You? Or the airline?
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Don't be an idiot. I have the right to travel.
I can't force an airline to carry me, but presumably they have no objection if they've sold me a ticket. When the Feds step in and force me to submit to intrusive, unjustified searches just to board the plane, they're denying me my right to travel.
Sure, I can drive, but that just proves they're full of shit unless they're going to start a Federal Highway Patrol with random stop-and-search under penalty of confiscation of my car for refusal.
I have every right under the sun unless something is explicitly forbidden by law. Don't presume that there are freedoms I do not have unless you can show me the law that has taken it away.
it doesn't make rational sense to accept the suspension of liberty for the sake of avoiding a statistical anomaly.
A massive new agency, funding, private interests and new equipment, contracts to keep it all running and ongoing upgrades.
A new closed system with few new players. Make an issue about it as a contractor and http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s3454/show Section 815 will see you blacklisted in other DoD contracts.
A few well connected people are going to get very rich, stay rich and move into other areas.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
No we weren't. We were attacked by a dissolute terrorist group that was hiding out there. We went in with poor planning, poor resourcing, and no goal by an administration more concerned with routing money to their pet corporations than doing a damn bit of good.
Had we focused on going in, finding bin Laden, and dragging his ass out instead of "nation building" and "liberation" then probably no one would care.
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.
We have a right to travel. The government has no business placing unreasonable burdens upon people wishing to travel by any means, which they are definitely doing in airports these days. I can't force an airline to carry me, but as I said earlier, if they've sold me a ticket then it's a done deal.
Both cases are completely and totally immaterial to right now, since those were actual wars and not fear parades.
Err...
Wait, now I can't tell if I just gave you a bite or if you're serious.
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.
Yes, that was Bin Laden's plan all along. Right now, in a cave someplace is a banner that reads "Mission Accomplished". He might even be wearing Bush's flight suit too.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
We were attacked by Saudis you fool. Afghanistan lacked the ability to catch Osama and so far it seems we too lack that ability.
I had a friend that died from AIDS. Several friends, in fact. The fact that the money that could be going into research for a cure or treatment is instead going into this useless security theater that isn't going to stop anyone, and instead will just get more of us killed on the highways as we opt to travel by car instead, sickens me.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
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.
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.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
TSA employee versus gynecologist; TSA employee gropes your junk or looks at your junk on a monitor; gynecologist feels your wife's pussy or stares deep into it; or both.
So, if I cut you open and remove an internal organ, it's okay because a doctor can do it???
Similar to the upcoming US election results
Nobody is making you go to the doctor. You do so because he provides a demonstrable benefit. What demonstrable benefit does the TSA groping provide? When has the security theater ever ONCE actually accomplished it's supposed goal?
Isn't enough that I ruined a pony, making a gift for you?
For countless years, people in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Lebanon, Pakistan, India, etc have been dealing with bomb, IED and explosive threats. Countless people have died at the hands of these terrorist attacks. The people in those countries make the choice every day to live their lives normally...in the face of not having any of the "security" mechanisms that we have. They have not chosen to trade human rights for "safety." In this sense, they are already free-er than us.
Why is it that the TSA isn't being fundamentally challenged under the 4th amendment. It is illegal for the government to x-ray bags, let alone use the full body scanners or even metal detectors at an airport. Both of these are illegal searches and seizures. The US Constitution under Amendment 4 requires that due process be followed, and that warrants be issued that indicate specific persons to be searched and articles to be seized, and that the Police only have the right to search persons in the situation where they have already observed illegal activity in plain sight. Currently, the whole process assumes that every individual is guilty and must be "authorized" by an agent of the United States Federal Government as innocent. In many states, dragnet style traffic stops have been ruled illegal, how is this any different.
In all reality the only solution to this problem is to have all gate security at airports performed by non-governmental agencies. So that means that they must be be employed by the airlines directly and not employed by the airports themselves, unless the airport is run as a for-profit organization that does not receive nor never has received any public money for construction or operation. In other words, the air ports hire the security agency. The US Government can provide guidelines, but cannot require that they be followed, nor can they compel any airport authority or air line to enforce the requirement in any particular manner, because that constitutes action by the government. Since air travel is private venture, the US Government has no say in it's operation under the commerce clause of the Constitution. In this case the security agents have the ability to perform any search they see fit, as long as they do not infringe upon an individuals civil liberty (for instance causing undue efforts to be made by some one in a protected class). But this is much better case, as it is and has always known to be easier to vote with one's wallet than at the ballot box, as a single dollar is worth more than any individual's vote.
So why hasn't the federal government been sued to abolish the TSA like so many other three-letter organizations formed the last socialist regime (I count Bush to be as much a socialist as our current president, as the current president has done nothing but extend Bush's policies).
So no I'm flagged. I for one welcome our fondling, pornographic overlords.