A Nude Awakening — the TSA and Privacy 728
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.'"
Re:It has never been about security (Score:2, Interesting)
Who in their right mind feels more secure about it though?
Having nude pictures taken or having my junk felt up makes me feel quite INsecure.
If its really about security, and the junk must be fondled, than I want to have the right to fondle everyone on the same flight as me, attendants and pilots included, all the passengers, and they should all have the same right to fondle everyone else. With any luck, the procedure will simply take too long to be practical or in semi-rare cases break out into an orgy. Having never taken part in one I can't say I wouldn't relish the opportunity.
Stop using risk as basis of argument (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Wil Shipley got it right (Score:5, Interesting)
Wil Shipley posted a (ficticious) interview [wilshipley.com] 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.
Re:Some People (Score:4, Interesting)
I would really like to be more outraged on this topic. But the propects of fondling and pornography are just too titilating to me. Damn prudes :-P
Then again, I haven't actually flown all that recently. Maybe my opinion will change after I fly cross country with the kids later this month.
Re:Some People (Score:4, Interesting)
I think the government should allow each airline to offer, say, 50 flights per day in which you don't have to go through all the security theater. That way people can take a calculated risk on whether they want to be molested, photographed nude, or none of the above.
Re:Some People (Score:5, Interesting)
Then you sir are an idiot. No offense.
I fly all the time as well...or, to phrase it better...I used to fly alot before the TSA and DHS decided that the 4th Ammendment is null and void while proceeding through a security checkpoint at an airport.
Yesterday, before the Porn Scan and/or Freedom Fondle, I had approximately a 1 in 25,000,000 chance (Soruce: TFA) of dying in a terrorist attack on the plane.
Today, with the Porn Scan and/or Freedom Fondle, I have an approximate 1 in 25,000,000 chance (Source: TFA) of dying in a terrorist attackon the plane.
So between yesterday and today, I have gained nothing & lost my rights.
Sounds like a fair trade to me. Personally, I'd rather die free than live in fear. But that's me.
Re:Some People (Score:5, Interesting)
1. Reinforced cockpit doors
2. Passengers no longer reacting passively
Those 2 things alone will prevent another 9/11 from ever happening again. 9/11 wasn't about bombs it was about controlling aircraft and using them as bombs. Flight #93 is proof of that. When the passengers fought back, the removed the control that the terrorists had and so the terrorists crashed the plane.
The only thing I'll disagree with you on is this
weapons or bombs, both of which are of little use outside of a direct confrontation with the passengers and crew
Bombs are quite useful outside of direct confrontation. If the underwear bomber or shoe bomber had been able to detonate without being interrupted, damage would have been done and we all be getting our colonoscopies for free during our strip searches at the airports. The planes may not have crashed but that wasn't ever the goal of those plans. Just scare us into reacting and they worked perfectly.
Follow the funding (Score:4, Interesting)
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 [opencongress.org] 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.
The real problem with TSA and US govt... (Score:2, Interesting)
The fact that US government thinks that all of its citizens are potential terrorists hell-bent on launching attacks on their own country.
Seriously... how many of the terrorists on the 911 flights were American-born citizens? Why are AMERICAN citizens being humiliated and treated as terrorists? How hard is it to simply put all the foreigners in a separate queue and subject just THEM to these extra measures? I am not american and I would totally understand THAT measure. If I did not like it, I simply wouldn't come to America. Period. Hell if you wanted to be totally anal, you could even put those citizens who were not America-born on that list.
Oh, and there is a BIG difference between spying on FOREIGNERS living in America, and spying on American CITIZENS themselves.
Some nutcases attack your country and the government response is to start spying on their own citizens and treating them as terrorists?(that while Osama is still walking free). And instead of loudly objecting to THAT, all you guys want is that TSA measures were "less" harsh? Hell, half of you actually argue on these counter-measures as "necessary". Even when they are being taken against American citizens themselves.
Way to go, geniuses.