The terrorists don't have to take any planes down, they just have to think up new ways to mess with the security equipment and we all have to go through another hoop at the airport. This new one is pretty invasive.
This picture comes from the Guardian which carried an article about the full body scanners in the UK, where they've been delayed because they would breach child pornography laws.
Here are some excerpts from the story which you can get in full at the link.
The rapid introduction of full body scanners at British airports threatens to breach child protection laws which ban the creation of indecent images of children, the Guardian has learned. . .
They also face demands from civil liberties groups for safeguards to ensure that images from the £80,000 scanners, including those of celebrities, do not end up on the internet. The Department for Transport confirmed that the "child porn" problem was among the "legal and operational issues" now under discussion in Whitehall after Gordon Brown's announcement on Sunday that he wanted to see their "gradual" introduction at British airports.
A 12-month trial at Manchester airport of scanners which reveal naked images of passengers including their genitalia and breast enlargements, only went ahead last month after under-18s were exempted. . .And what sort of rays pass through our bodies? Do we know they don't cause cancer or some other harm? When I was a kid we had fluoroscope machines in the shoe stores so we could see our feet inside our shoes. Until someone realized this was not healthy for kids. Will this be the same? Scan now, check on health dangers later?
What if airline passengers were ready to turn around from security and say no? Just flying less doesn't seem to work. Can we figure out ways that get people to join in a mass boycott of airport security, ways that overcome all the pressures to just suck it up and let them do it to you - the cost of the ticket, the inconvenience of making huge changes in one's plans, the threat from the TSA for doing anything to question them, etc.
It has to be planned so people can get their refunds (buying first class tickets maybe?), where enough people do it to get attention, where airlines are affected by the loss of already paid passenger revenue, and where people have the time to deal with the likely hassle. It's time to force the powers that be to consider reasonableness as well as safety in designing security.
Maybe here in Alaska where privacy is protected by our State Constitution we can argue that TSA is forcing us to give up our State Constitutional rights to privacy if we want to exercise our Federal Constitutional rights to interstate travel.
You know the frog in the pot of water story? Well, bubbles are starting to appear as I write.
Security will always have priority over privacy in my book.If the state constitution says otherwise, change the constitution.
ReplyDeleteBy all means protect the children and make the operatives accountable for destroying the data, and do pass legislation to stop people from dying due to no health insurance and punish bad behaviour on highways. Terrorism is the major hazard in air travel today.Doing nothing is no more an option than giving in to their demands.
In the US, where it takes a legally issued search warrant to look into one's home, our very bodies are no longer exempt from an assumed guilt and obligatory consent, electronic strip search.
ReplyDeleteWhat amazes me is that this smashes the barrier erected between legal evidence gathering and rights of the suspect--namely, that we are not a suspect unless we have displayed behavior giving rise to suspicion. Is simply wishing to fly now evidence of such suspicious behavior? Perhaps the true 'no-fly' passenger in this proposed search humiliation is anyone who refuses to be searched in a such an intimate way.
And let's not stop there. Why can't we set up random road blocks to catch drink drivers, too? We long ago began randomly testing people who work in offices for possible drug use, even though the initial rationale was to test public transportation drivers.
That's why I bring up the CCTV in Britain. Originally begun under 'test' procedures in the 1960s to catch badly behaving sports fans, it blossomed in the 70s and 80s to protect against domestic terrorism--that little problem with the IRA. In the 90s, its use was expanded to record and prevent criminal activity.
There are now millions of these cameras all over the country here. People clamor for more, not less, unfortunately. Security over constitutional privacy rights, eh? Many agree with anonymous. I don't.
Fortunately, Jay, in both US and UK we have a system called democracy where prospective governments have regard for the desires of those who with good reason, "clamor for more" security, however much a vociferous minority may see it as "humiliation". Putting your own privacy above safety is only acceptable if others with different values are not endangered. I for one am not prepared to put myself or those I love in danger for the sake of another's abstract principles or delicate sensibilities.
ReplyDeleteYou don't say if the increased surveillance worked in Britain. Most UK residents felt more secure in the face of the not so "little problem" of the IRA bombing campaign. And if it solves more crime, what's the problem?
As for constitutional rights; why shouldn't they be changed if the majority see a need with changing times? Immutable fundamentalism in religion is at the root of many of our security problems We don't need to extend it to constitutions.
It is not unreasonable to hold to guarantees of a constitution that protects civil and human rights. You hold security (ie life) more precious than liberty (America's founders held these elements inseparable) and I find that inseparability wise in this day, not because it is holy writ as you suggest.
ReplyDeleteI acknowledge that we may get the democracy we want, and as America fought a war for independence to determine its liberty, I hope to save us from surrendering to those who would limit liberty.
I will limit my flying and will look to travel by other means. I stand against this policy and yet to protect your life, as I seem to be careless of my own, I must concede my rights to being free from assumed suspicion and unwarranted search.
That dear anon, is no small concession on my part and no majority makes your position right, only expedient.
Jay Dugan-Brause
London, England UK (formerly of Alaska)
P.S. If we are to engage in electronic conversation, would you please post your name?
Anon, First, I never wrote "do nothing." That's an option that you introduced in this discussion. That sort of distortion makes reasonable discussion difficult.
ReplyDeleteOne of the issues I was raising is our perception of risk. It's more dangerous to drive than to fly. There have been, in the US, about 280,000 traffic deaths since 9/12/01. And 0 airline terrorist deaths.
Even if five full Airbuses had been blown up in that time, that would be about 2,500 deaths, or about 277,500 fewer deaths than on our roads.
Every five days in the US, the equivalent of one full Airbus (@500 people) die on US roads. Yet no one notices unless someone they know died.
We have one plane that doesn't even crash in December, and everyone is up in arms and we add another expensive and more invasive layer of screening.
Every five days. Six a month, 72 a year. The same number of people die in auto accidents as 72 full airbus crashes. Each year. Can you imagine? (Actually, I rounded off. It would be 80 airbuses in a year to get to 40,000.)
How many airbus crashes would it take before all the airports were shut down if there was a new crash every five days? Even if they weren't terrorist caused, we'd have a national crisis.
But that many people die on the roads and... yawn.
People complain about being forced to use a seat belt in a car. Anchorage was forced to dismantle photo radar to catch speeders in school zones because it 'wasn't fair' to drivers. Yet we're about to put up with body scans - which some experts say won't detect the chemicals in December's incident - to fly on a plane when not one person has died from a terrorist attack on a plane in the US since 9/12/01.
Anon also thinks that his 100% safety level for air safety and 0% regard for dignity and privacy are more important than my value of maybe 90% safety level (certainly way higher than we tolerate in auto safety) and some minimum standard for treating humans with dignity and respecting their privacy.
At what point, Anon, would you complain about abuse of dignity and privacy?
Strip searchers for all passengers?
If you want to fly, you have to do it nude?
Interrogation of all passengers, possibly with mild torture if 'necessary'?
What's the point of airline safety if we end up with a totalitarian regime that can arrest us, torture us, and kill us on the ground at will? I'm not saying we're anywhere near that, but I'm curious at what point Anon would say, "Enough." How about when his wife or daughter is strip searched in the back room and he has to wait outside?
You know, if you are pulled over for a strip search and you say, "Look, I don't need to fly this bad" that you will raise their suspicions even more.
Security is very important and I am not sure these will be public photos.
ReplyDeleteThe inseparability of life and liberty seems a less than practical aspiration in modern complex society. Policy as practised by government is the art of the possible. In a society whose members hold differing values it has to be negotiated and be acceptable to the majority, even where individuals may object.
ReplyDeleteIn this case governments have to balance the need to protect citizens from being blown up against the need to protect their particular and individual perceptions of their own dignity.
I accept that you may not be advocating doing nothing, but what would make "reasonable discussion" less difficult would be knowing how you would deal with the terrorist threat, short of tailoring American foreign policy to fit their agenda.
Where I would complain about abuse of personal dignity and privacy is well above the examples you give, though I would review my position if the threat became more severe.
The current proposals seem an proportionate response to the threat, so far as I can judge. But my judgment is hardly relevant.I have elected representatives to make informed judgments about what is necessary, or appoint those who can. If that is not being done effectively, then let us address that issue rather than each try to make individual decisions or look to a document (i.e. constitution) drawn up in an earlier, less perilous age.
The community I live in is a fairly mature democracy unlikely to consent to such extremes as nude travel and the torture, mild or otherwise, of its own citizens, and hopefully will no longer tolerate the torture of others outside that community. Of course bad things do happen in a democracy, and those who step over the line should be made accountable. Nevertheless, it is still the least worse way of regulating society, and I would always endeavour to subordinate my own concerns to those of wider society.
None of this precludes addressing the appalling problem of road deaths, and if these could be reduced by restricting privacy I should not object, provided a majority concurred, any more than if a majority agreed that the loss of life from a reduction in airplane security was a price worth paying for privacy.
In terms of how we address the issue of road deaths, the people may have it wrong. But they are still the people. If their elected representatives are not to decide public policy, who should?
I doubt if I'll make any further comment on these matters. The blogosphere is not an area I normally venture into, but I've enjoyed the interaction which has helped clarify my own thinking. You may well wish to have the last word. After all, it's your blog
Anon, I think we're getting closer to being able to discuss this meaningfully as we articulate our positions more clearly.
ReplyDeleteI guess I have less confidence in my representatives to oversee how the Transportation Safety Administration implements its policy than you have. On the ground we have relatively low paid people making generic decisions. But I have to admit it was a shock to hear that the plane came from Amsterdam, where, in my experience, the security people were much brighter and better trained and who used more individualized assessments of passengers. But there can always be slip ups when humans are concerned, and over the Christmas holiday rush, such mistakes are more likely.
Thanks for participating. I don't want the last word. I want to understand what you are saying and I want you to understand my questions and enlighten me.
As someone who has engaged in difficult conversations, often times respectfully and sometimes not, I believe Steve has created a blog site unlike many in that dialogue is more often the norm.
ReplyDeleteIt is not a lost cause to hold forth on our differences here. It is possible to learn from those unlike ourselves -- after we get through our inevitable position statements.
What I find curious is that your view is much like Brits I know. If you wish to continue, I would still like to know your name, if only a first name, please.
If not, do take a read of Lt Gov. Campbell's op-ed in the Anchorage Daily News today and the replies he has received. It seems I may have misread the (vocal) public on this matter.
Jay, I just read the Lt. Gov's piece and cite in in my next post..
ReplyDeleteI'm reneging on my undertaking to refrain from further comment in order to endorse most of the Lt-gov.s thoughts which I found coherent and persuasive. Clearly, existing procedures do need to be carried out effectively before more invasive approaches are applied. As some comments in ADN imply, the terrorist may always be a step ahead of any the security, and as you correctly observe, Steve, our democratically appointed officials do not always achieve the standards of competence and integrity we would wish for.
ReplyDeleteI have not changed my view that security is more important than privacy, but I concede that we need to proceed more carefully in implementation of policies which intrude on individual liberties. I suspect that there may be a cultural difference across the Atlantic. Objection to infringements of personal liberty for the public good seems more ingrained in the American psyche than the European, as demonstrated by the oppostion to any ideas vaguely resembling socialism by the majority in the States, whereas state intervention in many areas such as medicine are taken for granted in Europe.
As Jay has probably deduced, I am a UK subject and so probably reflect that cultural difference. Sorry not to reveal more, Jay. (Put it down to an inconsistent regard for privacy)
Please excuse the over-simplification and stereo-typing (I prefer to regard it as generalisation from experience).
You may detect some movement in my position, so thanks again for the dialogue which has brought it about.
Glad you came back. I wonder if you can identify what I said in that first post that pushed you to write a comment. I know I saw that picture and I just couldn't imagine people putting up with that. But the Lt. Gov did a much better job of saying what I was thinking.
ReplyDeleteMaybe you can try to answer these questions:
1. Did you have a stand before reading the post or did you form one reading the post?
2. If you already were in a strong safety over privacy position, would reading the Lt. Gov's piece have changed your mind?
3. If yes, would you have left a comment?
I've speculated that I don't have a lot of comments here because I tend not to make provocative statements. (A better explanation is that people only read a few lines and move on.)
Jay left a new comment on the more recent post on UAA you might want to check.
Thanks for visiting. And when you do comment, consider, even if you use the anonymous option, making up some name to sign with. That way if you ever comment again, I'll know who it is.
Briefly,
ReplyDelete1. The specific issue was new to me, but reading the post provoked me as the idea of placing privacy above security took my breath away rather, as did the linking of road deaths, which like other issues such as the right to bear arms desperately needs addressing, but is of much less concern to the public.
2.The Lt.Govs. piece made me more aware that other measures have not been effectively implemented, and that much more could be done before the imposition of the more intrusive procedures. It made me more aware of the problems of abuse of the procedure and ensuring that images are destroyed, identities to images not retained etc.
3.So I probably wouldn't have made a comment after reading it. But I don't normally comment anyway.
Yes you provoked me,and although I only read your blog intermittently, I generally read the bits that interest me to the end.
Finally, if I come back again anonymously, I shall use the following pseudonym so you will have some idea of where I am coming from:
Demos
Demos, thanks for the explanation and the moniker. I never intended to suggest privacy over security, but do feel that security is being implemented in a way that completely disregards respect of people and privacy. So I have to be more careful when I'm writing to be clearer about what I'm saying.
ReplyDeleteI must also say that in Anchorage, the TSA people tend to be good humored and recognize that passengers are people. But looking at the photos from the scanner, I just thought that was going too far.
Again, thanks for participation here.