COLUMN: A nude awakening — TSA and privacy
Published: December 6, 2010
Editor’s note: This column is in response to Kate McPherson’s Tuesday column, “Airport screenings could be worse.”
Daily columnist Kate McPherson wrote a column on Tuesday in defense of the Transportation Security Administration’s newest screening procedures, arguing that because security protocol in other countries is far more invasive than that implemented in the U.S., the American public should be grateful to have such ‘minor’ abbreviations of liberty. In my experience with debate I have found that any position whose primary justification is “it could be worse” is almost certainly wrong.
My colleague argues that aggressive pat-downs and full-body scans are crucial to our security. This argument fails in multiple respects — it makes the false assumption that these new procedures are actually effective in mitigating the risk of terrorism, which they aren’t; it fallaciously presumes that one’s security risk is higher in an airport than it is anywhere else, which it isn’t; and it prescribes a remedy that is far worse than the disease. Benjamin Franklin had a pithy rebuttal: “those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Here’s mine:
There is little evidence to suggest that the newest TSA procedures will be effective at reducing terrorism. Indeed, security expert Bruce Schneier stated unequivocally that nothing that can conceivably be done to stop a well-financed al-Qaeda-like plot from materializing — once terrorist plotters have made it to the airport, it’s already too late to stop them. Against “lone-wolf” amateur forms of terrorism, upper-level intelligence agencies and pre-Sept. 11 technologies has consistently proven effective at neutralizing the threat.
Nevertheless, the TSA continues to advocate a model of security based upon overreaction. Ineffectual peripheral threats relating to liquid explosives, shoe bombs or printer cartridges coincide with rapid changes to the terrorist alert level (as if the risk of terrorism increases after a failed plot!) and reactionary modifications to security protocol, resulting in the loss of millions in governmental revenue, inconvenience for passengers and the abatement of fundamental liberty.
The fundamental problem is that terrorism is innovative while TSA policy is reactive. The TSA modifies its protocol on the basis of terrorist plots that have already happened, while an intelligent terrorist knows not to duplicate the failed efforts of past terrorists.
Security expert, Bruce Schneier, noted that international terrorists have already started smuggling weapons through body cavities, which can’t be detected through either x-rays or pat-downs, instantly rendering both our new procedures useless.
The other problem is that even if technology is capable, under experimental conditions, of identifying dangerous materials, there’s still a deeply flawed human element that undermines the effectiveness of these procedures.
TSA employees must independently evaluate hundreds of images a day, of people with different body shapes, garments, hairstyles, and physical eccentricities, on a government-issued chair, displayed on a 17-inch monitor, and without much monetary incentive, and we expect them, in less than five minutes, to competently delineate good people from bad people. It’s nonsense to believe that this technology will save us from terrorism, yet we’re sacrificing privacy and our dignity in the name of a goal that isn’t achievable: perfect safety.
The odds of dying on an airplane as a result of a terrorist hijacking are less than 1 in 25 million — which, for all intents and purposes, is effectively zero — according to Paul Campos, a law professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder. By comparison, the odds of dying in a normal airplane crash, according to the OAG Aviation Database, are 1 in 9.2 million. This means that, on average, pilots are responsible for more deaths than terrorists.
In the same vein, the average American is 87 times more likely to drown than die by a terrorist attack; 50 times more likely to die by lightening; and 8 times more likely to die by a police officer, according to the National Safety Council’s 2004 estimates. I can go on, the point is this: 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.
The $338 million spent so far on body scanners by the TSA could have instantly had larger social benefit had it been invested in almost anything else.
It’s as if our collective memory has been reconstructed around the fulcrum of Sept. 11, such that terrorism has been newly defined by the events surrounding that day, and not by the myriad other ways in which terrorism has historically been executed. If we can justify the imposition of invasive force and the volitional sacrifice of rights based upon a single historical aberration, where do we draw the line the next time a terrorist attack happens?
Would it be appropriate for the TSA to populate public parks, restaurants, casinos, zoos and public transit, all in the name of security? After all, in 2006 the Dpartment of Homeland Security listed those places as “top terrorist targets.” And if we were to use the same logic forwarded by TSA-proponents, we would say that because people aren’t required to go to these places, it’s okay to coerce them into abridging their rights. It’s their choice, after all. Yet, we obviously wouldn’t accept such a system if it were implemented, so why do we accept the same humiliating system at airports?
The inconsistency of our outrage is instructive — it shows that our perceptions of safety and security are not reflective of reality but are instead dictated to us externally by demagogic politicians who have a vested interest in our fear. We are a passive audience trapped in a theatre of the absurd — apparently too absorbed in brilliantly orchestrated drama to realize it’s all just a play.
We should be concerned with the 12.7 percent of Americans who live below the poverty line, or the 7.9 million people who die worldwide because of cancer, or the 9,000 innocent Afghani civilians we’ve killed fighting an unjustified war, but we are instead enraptured by xenophobic obscurantism that perverts our sense of risk, enables the abrogation of liberty and leaves us vulnerable to a self-defeating national policy that plays into the hands of terrorists.
Security for the sake of security is pointless — I can assure you that the risk of terrorism would be neutralized if airline passengers were required to board planes naked but such a requirement would be so intrusive and humiliating that security would have lost its meaningfulness. 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.
Consider a quote from United States v. Guest (1966): “In any event, freedom to travel throughout the United States has long been recognized as a basic right under the Constitution.” Another quote from Shapiro v Thompson (1969): “‘The constitutional right to travel from one State to another . . . has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized.’ … This constitutional right, which, of course, includes the right of ‘entering and abiding in any State in the Union,’ is not a mere conditional liberty subject to regulation and control under conventional due process or equal protection standards. ‘[T]he right to travel freely from State to State finds constitutional protection that is quite independent of the Fourteenth Amendment.’ As we made clear in Guest, it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all.”
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.
Every time we convince ourselves that things “aren’t that bad” and thus not in need of change, we are training ourselves to be complacent in the face of injustice, and we are weakening our capacity to challenge those forces most in need of change. It could always be worse, but that doesn’t mean we should surrender the opportunity to make it better.
— Evan DeFilippis, political science and economics junior
Comments
LouieInSeattle 1 year, 2 months ago
How long do you think invasive body scans or pat downs would last if everyone refused to fly? One month? Two? I'd guess one week. Trouble is, nobody will unite against any form of tyranny, however friendly. Too many people just don't care.
Aphrodisiac 1 year, 2 months ago
This guy is such a whiny hack. He misspelled "lightning" and had a typo where the first "e" in "Department" should be. If you don't like secure airports, move to Somalia. Maybe they'll teach you how to spell there, too.
Ajzimm3rman 1 year, 2 months ago
Meh. xenophobic obscurantism?
Also, Maybe we can do a race study to find what race crashes planes the most. Then we can allow all whites to carry guns onboard. Sounds good to me.
academon 1 year, 2 months ago
Honestly better than any write-up on the subject that I've read yet. Amazingly done.
Calculon 1 year, 2 months ago
This is the best breakdown of the problem with the TSA's behaviour that I have thus far seen. The same argument could be applied to discount any level of security at all. The question is where the balance lies and how to demonstrate concisely and qualitatively that the TSA exceeds that balance. I believe you have satisfied that by using comparison to alternate and greater risk factors that could be addressed instead which appear to be a dime a dozen and some with potentially far more economic options for risk reduction (although not greatly elaborated on).
I prefer to look at it in a similar but different way focusing purely on the two sides involved. I would define terrorists as combatants with no or few limits regarding the lengths they will go to in order to attempt to force their will. Should the TSA meet them head on and subscribe to the same lack of self restriction that terrorists exhibit to stop them? In the world of security and warfare, things are not so simple. Offensive measures and their reciprocal defensive measures can be asymmetric. We see this perfectly here as you have highlighted, one or two terrorists per several million travellers and all those travellers must under go security checks. Given that asymmetry in favour of terrorists: If the TSA does not "know when to give up" and does whatever it takes to stop the threat of terrorist strikes against transport it will end up footing a disproportionate cost (financially and otherwise). In such a case, even if ever terrorist plot fails, they will have still caused immense expenditure and disruption to the transport system. They will have caused some form of damage. At what point is that cost greater than the cost of a few plots succeeding?
Is it really worth trying to find a needle in a haystack? I don't know, but monetarily based on the EPA's valuation of a human life then if 35.2083333 people are saved then perhaps the TSA's investment will have paid off in the government's eyes.
1amwendy 1 year, 2 months ago
Extremely well written and supported. I have a suggestion for a TSA revamp:
1: make sure all cockpit doors are very hardened
2 have air marshalls on all flights
3 check ALL luggage and cargo for explosives/bio weapons
4 have all carryons and outer garments (incl suit jackets) scanned
5 have agents available to check people with baggy clothes (no AK47s)
6 have bomb-sniffing somethings at all checkpoints 24-7
7 no metal detectors or body scanners. Box cutters and even small arms will not be able to take down aircraft in the above scenario, so we should not worry about them anymore.
Result: no $60 billion checking basically disabled/elderly for their metal. Health, privacy, HIPPA and 4th Amendment concerns - eliminated. no spending billions on intrusive technology - costs greatly reduced no groping children safer flights
hongheets 1 year, 2 months ago
LOL, the TSA is a JOKE. Biggest WASTE of an agency there is, period.
www.real-privacy.edu.tc
anon1262010 1 year, 2 months ago
"it’s as if our collective memory has been reconstructed around the fulcrum of Sept. 11"
Bingo. The terrorism we've encountered here in the United States of Homeland Security is more concerned with symbolic acts that instill fear than it is with actually inflicting damage. If any of this security theater was actually about saving lives, effective mass transit would be considered a national security priority. Cars kill as many Americans every month as Saudi hijackers killed on 911, yet the government goes out of its way with bailouts, subsidized highway infrastructure, and cash for clunkers to ensure as many people as possible are out there driving. At the same time, mass transit is denigrated as a second-class form of transportation. If you get 6 people on a city bus, that bus is getting something like 26 miles per gallon. In Chicago, where they have an elevated train, whenever the city builds a train stop, they're effectively guaranteeing local businesses a certain level of pedestrian traffic for the indefinite future, which is good for business and good for property value. Commuters who make use of mass transit can have their hands free to work while commuting -- increasing productivity -- or they can completely relax and not have to worry about road rage. Part of what made 911 so effective was that, for the first time since the 60's (when there were only three TV stations), everybody in America saw the same thing on TV at the same time. It was an event made for TV using the visual language of Hollywood. While the airplane is the new symbol of terror, the car must at all costs remain the national symbol of freedom.
mjjddh 1 year, 2 months ago
Excellent analysis. Everyone should read this.
Bob_Dobbs 1 year, 2 months ago
As an expat of 17 years (originally from Oklahoma), I applaud your well written article. It's nice to see someone getting it right, especially in an area of the U.S. not particularly known for questioning the status quo!
The rest of the world is slowly filling up with Americans who, for various reasons - but increasingly more often out of political conviction - have turned their backs on the American system and way of life. I admit, I simply gave up myself. I couldn't take the short-circuited, obtuse approach to problem solving anymore, and moved on to live a meaningful life in a culture more agreeable to basic human values and freedom in my opinion.
From abroad, we look on in abject horror while our home country continues to slide deeper and deeper into what can aptly be described as friendly fascism, unabated by clearly demonstrable conflicts of interest, reactionary politics, and corruption at the highest levels of both the private and public sectors of our once great society.
Hats off to those like you who can still stomach it there, and continue to shine a light in the seemingly black hole of modern American rationale. You are heroes in my book, and I wish you the best of luck in spreading your message to those in need of hearing it!
PollyProteus 1 year, 2 months ago
Evan,
There are a few flaws in your overall premise. The biggest is the mistaken belief that a convenient privilege (travel by commercial aircraft) is a constitutional right.
The second is the belief that the "right to travel" (in your references near the end of your article) is equal to "the right to travel by commercial aircraft".
Given that there are other modes of travel (charter aircraft [think air taxi], your own aircraft[get a license and buy/rent your own plane], your car, bus, train, bicycle and last but not least, shoe leather.), flight on commercial aircraft is an option and therefore a privilege.
I don't argue the right to travel, to cross state lines, what I argue is that this right does NOT mandate the type of travel, only that you can.
Basically it boils down to this: If you don't like the TSA security screenings at the airport prior to boarding a commercial flight, then it's your obligation to exercise your right to choose another method of travel.
Polly
joshai 1 year, 2 months ago
Posted by anonymous / Aphrodisiac on December 6, 2010 at 9:26 a.m.
Wow, you're an intelligent sort, are you?
I'm guessing that you don't really come equipped with the mental faculty to understand what the author has written, so you pick a ridiculous grammatical error instead of addressing the CONTENT.
Who's whining now?
nstockto 1 year, 2 months ago
This is a very good article. Great job! I hope you make it into Senate someday.
aprilkennedy 1 year, 2 months ago
Saw a link to this article on Reddit, and it brought a tear to my eye. Finally, a coherent, intelligently written article from a reporter in Oklahoma! And from my alma mater, no less.
I recently went through the security checkline at LAX, and again in Albuquerque. I, along with many other mostly women passengers, was forced through the new body-scanning machines. I was threatened with "something much worse" by the TSA agents if I refused to go through the machine. As I did not want to be molested by a TSA agent, I went through the machine.
I was simply traveling with my family on our way to a wedding. I was treated just like a terrorist in my own country, simply because I wanted to board a plane. Additionally, I have two small children. If the TSA had insisted that my two toddlers go through the machine or be groped, we would have turned around and stayed home. Little kids are being subjected to this in many airports right now.
In addition to being a mother of two, I am a board certified Oncologist/Internist and as such attend multiple medical meetings in a year, and fly quite a bit. As I agree with the author, I wrote all of my representatives, here in California, and the President's office. I have not received a reply. This was over a month ago.
Thank you for your well-written article. The only way we can change things is to educate.
staceyjda 1 year, 2 months ago
Excellent column!!! I have been terribly disheartened at the level of apathy with which so many sheeple regard this assault against the most fundamental of human rights/dignity at our airports. Thank you for posting some numbers about the odds of dying in a terrorist attack vs several others. I think people forget that there is no such thing as "perfect safety." They also forget that Sept 11 would NOT have been stopped by the naked body scanners and sexual assault gropes (although it is always used as example number one of why a stranger "must" see every man, woman and child naked and/or have them groped before boarding an airplane). Sept 11 happened because evil men took control of the planes w/physical force using things that they were ALLOWED to take on the planes that day...
How sad it is that so many people foolishly give up the right to remain clothed in front of strangers or to not be touched in the most private areas of their bodies...for security theater. We've become a nation of cowards--perhaps the last lines of the national anthem should be changed to, "the land of the sheep, and the home of the meek."
I wonder how these little sheeple will feel when they get more trucks on the road w/the same scanning ability as the airport scanners? And yes, they already have them deployed in some areas to "keep us safe." Having strangers leering at the naked images of my family does not make me feel safe--quite the opposite. There's even talk that the same technology will be put into lamp posts at some point. Silly people that think this is only taking place at airports (google about courthouses and the one in FL where it turns out the images were being stored--w/the personal info of those that had been to the courthouse and had their naked images taken via this technology).
albert911emt 1 year, 2 months ago
Hey Evan DeFilippis, I was more or less with you until you said that the war in Afghanist is "an unjustified war"? Were you on another planet on September 11, 2001? You didn't notice any unusual events being reported on CNN that particular day? What kind of a moron thinks that if you are attacked, you SHOULDN'T fight back? Seriously DeFilippis, that is just the dumbest thing you could have said. Pacifism is a nice ideal, but to not respond to aggression is to invite more aggression, and you are old enough to know that. Stop being an idiot.
resipsaloquitur 1 year, 2 months ago
Very nice article. It seems absurd to me that so many people are simply okay with being frisked or fully viewed in the name of security. If that is really the case then those same people should let the police search their home without a warrant and without cause...because hey, that could stop terrorism too.
academon 1 year, 2 months ago
@albert911emt- The majority of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi Arabian; none of them were from Afghanistan. Even if they were from Afghanistan, they represent a fringe extremist group that isn't emblematic of the Afghani government.
PollyProteus 1 year, 2 months ago
@1amwendy - You wrote this:
"...small arms will not be able to take down aircraft in the above scenario, so we should not worry about them anymore."
Um... you honestly believe this? A handgun can definitely take down an aircraft. Given that an aircraft is pressurized to roughly 8000 feet airpressure and is flying at above 30,000 feet, rapid decompression can very definitely cause an aircraft to become unmanagable, especially if the hole in the side of the plane is anywhere near electronics or hydraulics.
Additionally, put a bullet into the front of an engine and that engine becomes nothing more than weight on the wing, creating drag. That's if it doesn't catch on fire and explode first.
Keep in mind the speed at which the turbines in those engines turn. Fan fragments can cut right through the plane and damage it's structure severely enough that the wing could come off.
Also, a box cutter is a deadly weapon in the right hands. It won't take a plane down but it surely will cause dead bodies.
Yes, eventually the passengers and crew may overpower the person with the weapon in the latter scenario, but in the former scenario a WHOLE lot of damage can be done to the aircraft before anyone overcomes their shock and fear to stop the person with the handgun.
Given these facts, I request that you never make this (extremely uneducated) statement ever again, it truly makes you look the fool.
And I say this with all honest and could be considered somewhat of an expert because I spent almost ten years in the military and have training in areas such as this.
Polly
HT307 1 year, 2 months ago
The real answer is to make better judgements about who is potentially a problem. Not old ladies or young children. Profiling - while a non PC word, is the real answer.
Not all Muslims are terrorists, but virtually all the terrists were of the Islamic faith. That is a fact that can not be disputed. There are other terrorists who have other faiths, but the ones who are most actively attacking america and our way of live are Islamic.
Spend the money on training and better profiling of travelers and things will become far more effective (both for the people and the government)
soonerboomers 1 year, 2 months ago
If you want to capture the overwhelming majority of terrorists in a particular profile, you don't profile muslims, you profile young men, regardless of race, ethnicity, etc.
Also, this is quite a bit more practical than profiling muslims, as profiling muslims is about as stupid as saying you are going to profile Christians. Guess what, they come in different colors.
PollyProteus 1 year, 2 months ago
@HT307 and soonerboomers:
Convince the ACLU that profiling is necessary and you might get away with it. Currently the ACLU jumps in screaming that profiling is illegal in any manner of law enforcement, claims it violates the civil liberties and rights of all citizens and residents.
That's the problem with trying to keep the skies safe, everybody wants to be safe, but nobody can come up with a solution that:
Polly
PollyProteus 1 year, 2 months ago
@Bob_Dobbs (the ExPat):
Seriously, if America is so bad that you live abroad voluntarily (I know what an ExPat is) and lock back "in horror" at what America is becoming, how come so many people want to move here?
Stashiv 1 year, 2 months ago
@PollyProteus
Are you going to feel the same why when all forms of public transit resort to these measures? Imagine jumping on a city bus through a full body scan and having the driver check you're good to go. Are you really going to say they have the right to do that and deny you service if you are unwilling to comply with that? And I can assure you, the American political state is a laughing matter in most places. Most of the poeple that want to move there are coming from 3rd world countries or places of povery and only want money to send back back home to their familes. It most certainly is not because they respect the American Government
soonerboomers 1 year, 2 months ago
PollyProteus, I am against profiling. I just wanted to make it clear, since so many young white males are always first to scream about profiling, that the most sensible profiling would be to take them aside (with every other white male) and inconvenience them, and strip them, and feel them up everytime they go the the airport. People love to profile, so long as they aren't the ones being targeted. That was my point.
JLP 1 year, 2 months ago
I'm glad you brought up the right to interstate travel. As Polly mentioned above, this does not necessarily mean that one has a constitutional right to travel via commercial airline. However, I think an argument could be made in support of such a right, particularly in regard to the business world.
For example, should an executive who travels cross-country on business be required to choose between his career and his right to privacy/health? It's not like such an individual has an option to take the extra week to travel by car or train rather than commercial airline.
I think the burden on the right to interstate travel, the right to privacy, and the right to not be subjected to radiation or physical intrusion on a weekly basis (for frequent travelers) far outweighs the effectiveness of these machines.
Let's bring in the explosive-sniffing dogs.
Finally, a word about ariline pilots. They have been advised to forgo the scanners in favor of the pat-downs in order to avoid excessive radiation exposure. Could you imagine having to be felt up by a coworker every time you go to work? This practice is bizarre, and pilots should not be asked to make this choice.
Thanks for the article.
toocheesy 1 year, 2 months ago
Great article. The fact that always bothers me is that the clogged up security checkpoints are themselves a pretty decent target for an enterprising bomber. Okay, we don't want someone to hijack the plane and fly it into a mess of people or a building. So, secure the plane's cockpit and train the staff to prevent this.. which has been and is being done. But treating every person who needs to travel as a suspect? That's just going too far.
I'm speaking with my wallet, the only voice that has any chance of being heard in this country. I'm traveling by rail/car/bus this holiday. Hear that, United? American?
Vulpine 1 year, 2 months ago
Personally, I disagree that this issues is so bleakly black and white. Pornography as a part of security is pure fear-mongering by people who are embarrassed or sensitive of their bodies. This isn't to say I disagree with them that such probes can be embarrassing, but I do disagree with their views of the results.
That said, I'm also not a fan of such apparently invasive scans when other means might make such methods obsolete. However, no matter what methods are used, there will be some group who claims that it does more harm than good. America needs to stop being afraid of its own shadow and stand up for itself rather than hiding from trouble. America has become a land of wimps on both sides of the political aisle, as seen by how everybody wants Government to fix our problems. Hey, Government right now is our problem--the fact that both sides are so self-centered that they can't see what they've done to our Republic.
um_yeah 1 year, 2 months ago
@polly
My dad is a materials engineer (I am an EE myself) and spent most of his life designing materials for engines in planes.
One of the most vivid memory of mine is the time I got to go and observe an engine test with him. The test consists of an explosion detonating and throwing material into the fan blades in order to simulate a catastrophic engine failure. You can see a video of something similar to this here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ek6adm...
According to him and his 40+ years of experience as an expert in the field, there has never been a recorded case of an engine failure of the type you suggest could be caused by a simple handgun. Engines are specifically designed and tested to prevent the possibility of "fan fragments [that] can cut right through the plane and damage it's structure severely enough that the wing could come off."
Makes the rest of your given "facts" questionable too. . .
cherman 1 year, 2 months ago
PollyProteus, you're a fearmonger. Please stop.
fuzzyeric 1 year, 2 months ago
In addition... The TSA is fundamentally ineffective. The process of detection results in four outcomes. True positives -- a signaled condition is present, false positives -- a signaled condition is not present, true negatives -- a non-signaled event is not present, and false negatives -- a non-signaled event is actually present. A quick run-down regarding the TSA's track record:
true positives: zero. false positives: every confiscated bottle and nail clipper, every IMS scan, every enhanced screening true negatives: the fraction of passengers not swabbed, not taken aside for enhanced screening, not deprived of property without due process, not otherwise further inconvenienced. false negatives: apparently a few per decade, although the number may be much lower -- it's politically unpopular to observe that terrorism doesn't actually happen.
To put it bluntly: The TSA catches nothing worth catching. To abuse Franklin's quote, the man that gives up some liberty and a crapload of money to achieve nothing is an idiot.
Stonehouse 1 year, 2 months ago
The TSA body scans are not going to stop terrorists. They are way ahead of this technology. In the meantime some goon is eying your loved one's nipples and possibly "Wacking Off". I don't care about my "Junk" but I would advise your loved one to go opt for a pat down. What a travesty to our human dignity. The terrorists are winning this round.
pilot 1 year, 2 months ago
Pilots are responsible for killing more people than terrorists? Is every single commercial airline crash the fault of the pilots? What about mechanic failures (Concorde) and air traffic control failures (near miss at my home field a month ago)?
Interesting article; bad hyperbole.
jjr153 1 year, 2 months ago
Polly, are you also afraid of your own shadow?
wynnia 1 year, 2 months ago
Mr. DePhillips' article presents a more compelling argument than any other I have seen on the uselessness and wastefulness of airport security.
Mr. Bob Dobbs comment is also interesting, and I tend to agree with him. I think our once-great society has been overcome by mindless greed, selfishness and corruption at all levels and in all sectors. Paying $338 million for ineffective and violative body scanners is one minor example of this.
loudscott 1 year, 2 months ago
Evan, without doubt the best article I have read so far that points out the ludicrous nature of this specific TSA policy. I have seen an even worse conundrum at airports where the scanner is not available: http://loudscott.blogspot.com/
anonOpin 1 year, 2 months ago
Any rational person can see the body scanners/searches make us no safer. It is clearly a way to siphon more money from the american tax payer. Where is the investigative journalism that exposes where this money is going and who is benefiting.
Talking points for or against are a waste of time and offer no more insight into the real issue. Terrorism is as much about economics as it is about the disruption of daily life. The scanner fiasco is a hands down win for the terrorists.
The companies manufacturing the scanners are taking advantage of public fear, as are the politicians who are profiting under the table.
DocSheldon 1 year, 2 months ago
Evan, I tip my hat to you, for a very well crafted piece, which eloquently states your opinions.
Opinions, by the way, with which I am in complete agreement. To those that say that one's right of travel does not necessarily include the right to travel by commercial airline, I would say this: By that logic, it might also be deemed to not include travel by private vehicle, or on a public highway, or during daylight hours or accompanied by your loved ones.
The point is, as Evan alluded to very well, is that once you begin to rationalize the abridging of rights, you have essentially given up those rights. The fact that you're giving them up a little bit at a time doesn't alter the outcome, it simply delays it.
Fantastic job, Evan! Keep 'em comin'!
Seattle 1 year, 2 months ago
There is one major thing that needs to be pointed out about the 9/11 attack - the mindset of the passengers who were on the planes. We as a country had been trained to give control to terrorists, that things would be ok, they'd get something or commando teams would storm the plane and kill them. THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN. Pilots would rather drive the plane into the ground than give up control. So, with the enhanced cockpit door being in place for something like 8 years, the idea of terrorists getting control is ZERO. So, guns, knives, nail clippers, box cutters, and the like have ZERO use - never mind the hero syndrome that would kick in to any number of people onboard the flight.
Now, that leaves them to blowing up a plane in flight. Well, the last two who did try this came in on an international flight - hello!?!? These scanners aren't overseas - where these terrorists got onboard - so we're worried about domestic flights???
These pat-downs and body scanners are a fraudulent waste of money. There are easier ways to get things past security and chances are that TSA knows this, but won't admit it.
academon 1 year, 2 months ago
@pilot-- obviously not every crash is a fault of the pilot, but given that there have been more pilot-induced plane crashes than terrorist attacks on planes, the statistic still holds true.
juneabrown 1 year, 2 months ago
You are so right.
And, yes, it is a fallacy. It falls under Non-Sequitur (it doesn't follow). It could be worse, isn't an argument against making something better. They have absolutely nothing to do with one another.
Bomb-sniffing dogs would be FAR more effective than full-body scanners. Because bomb-sniffing dogs, unlike full-body scanners, COULD detect small amounts of explosives on a person. Dogs could have caught the underwear AND the shoe guy. In fact, dogs are THE most effective method of detective explosives. All without any civil rights violation whatsoever.
While some may argue that allergies could be an issue, there are drugs that the allergic can take when flying, as well as chemicals that can be used on the dogs to reduce their allergens. Not to mention the fact that an allergic person may already encounter dogs in public places, because of service dogs and the like.
bard 1 year, 2 months ago
Profile. Period.
Bob_Dobbs 1 year, 2 months ago
@PollyProteus
You asked me:
"Seriously, if America is so bad that you live abroad voluntarily (I know what an ExPat is) and lock back "in horror" at what America is becoming, how come so many people want to move here?"
While I can't claim to fully understand the mindset behind all immigrants wishing to become American residents, I can say with some certainty that the majority are simply unaware that the America they wish to experience was fundamentally sold up the river a long time ago - that's how friendly fascism works, and I'd actually question your assumption that "so many people" still want to move there. Most people I know don't even want to visit anymore, and the few I have remained in contact with there express a mixture of fear, repulsion, and anger with the current situation for a multitude of reasons. It would be interesting to see recent trends regarding perceived U.S. quality of life, both internally and abroad.
Citizens of developing countries are easily enticed with the idea of living in a place with a (perceived) better standard of living - the problem is that the standard of living you have left is all but overshadowed by trade-offs and pitfalls. This is not easily evident until you experience it personally.
Sometimes you have to choose to do the right thing over the obviously shortsighted logical "band-aid to stop the crying kid who got shoved on the playground" approach. Security in the U.S. is a farcical theater of pure propaganda, and Americans need to ask themselves who is responsible for the plot. Maybe start by asking where "al-Qaeda" got it's training and funding, or why the terrists wanna steal our freedums.
When they ask you if you'd like them to cup you while they stroke you in the War Against Terror©, I'm sure you'll be smiling like a true Yes Man®.
And so will the jaded victims of American foreign policy.
Lose, lose.
softwarementor 1 year, 2 months ago
Polly says "Basically it boils down to this: If you don't like the TSA security screenings at the airport prior to boarding a commercial flight, then it's your obligation to exercise your right to choose another method of travel."
To restate Polly's argument, if the government decides to do something, then your only option is to do it or get out of Dodge. I mean, it worked SOOO well for Hitler and Stalin and the jerk boss at the local (failed) hardware store. Just shut up or get out. Who do you think is in charge here in the US, buddy? You??? Ha!!!! Do you think that the government was instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness? Ha! again.
This is the new world order, buddy. Shut up, sit down, stand up, get groped and enjoy it. Or leave. There is no other option. Well, Polly thinks that there is no other option. YMMV.
smkstack 1 year, 2 months ago
Polly, your idea that the method of travel between states has some bearing on whether or not a right is being exercised is without foundation. The framers of the Constitution and hundreds of years of case law does not distinguish between one method or another. There has been no distinction made between walking and riding a horse or taking a train or riding a bus.
If anything, the right to freely and equally travel by public and private modes has been upheld as a right and not a privilege. The courts did not adopt your position when they desegregated public and private bus lines in the 1950s. Nor have they allowed for discrimination on who could obtain a driver's license. These facts show that your argument has no merit.
RodneyLee 1 year, 2 months ago
What do you call the Airport Security People with out the TSA to Back them..... Homeless and Broke. Maybe we should just fly naked, we'd be much friendlier to each other that way, or at least strip down right there in public and request a pat down for the opposite sex least that way we'll smile, hell the TSA are a Terroist group them selves, using Fear and Force to get there way who get to Pat them down?
cmb005 1 year, 2 months ago
"Journalism" like this tends incites more than it informs.
It's clear from the start that this author hasn't spoken with a TSA official in the past five years, or possibly even ever, which is irresponsible and makes this a one-sided rant, not an informed argument.
The author instead quotes a law professor, old court cases, and a computer security specialist, none of which have the knowledge/experience/relevancy that can give an accurate portrayal of current initiatives and measures being taken.
The author should have been more responsible in his research. Fueling tensions and incitant, one-sided arguments doesn't make journalism, it makes a blog.
Arafat 1 year, 2 months ago
Evan writes, "There is little evidence to suggest that the newest TSA procedures will be effective at reducing terrorism. Indeed, security expert Bruce Schneier stated unequivocally that nothing that can conceivably be done to stop a well-financed al-Qaeda-like plot from materializing — once terrorist plotters have made it to the airport, it’s already too late to stop them."
I don't know that this is entirely true. Stepped up security measures prevented the attempt by Islamists to bring down a group of planes traveling from Europe to America. Stepped up security measures have made it increasingly difficult for Islamists to get through to the new security apparatus. Every step we take to prevent Islamists from achieving their goals seems to collectively work.
Arafat 1 year, 2 months ago
Evan writes, "The odds of dying on an airplane as a result of a terrorist hijacking are less than 1 in 25 million — which, for all intents and purposes, is effectively zero — according to Paul Campos, a law professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder. By comparison, the odds of dying in a normal airplane crash, according to the OAG Aviation Database, are 1 in 9.2 million. This means that, on average, pilots are responsible for more deaths than terrorists."
But isn't this in large part thanks to the security steps we have taken.
Imagine if we did nothing. Are you saying Islamists would not be blowing up planes on a regular basis?
If Israel did not have the intense security steps in place they practice do you believe for a second that Islamists would not have at it?
Arafat 1 year, 2 months ago
Evan writes, " but we are instead enraptured by xenophobic obscurantism that perverts our sense of risk, enables the abrogation of liberty and leaves us vulnerable to a self-defeating national policy that plays into the hands of terrorists."
What plays into the hands of Islamists is pretty simple, and has been doing so since Mohammed's terrorism "cleansed" the Arabian Peninsula of all non-Muslims.
Here is what it is:
thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/Quran-Hate.htm
Jack_Park 1 year, 2 months ago
According to THE LAW, Americans DO have the right to fly.
49 U.S.C. § 40103 says that "A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace."
Do'oh!
jjkusaf 1 year, 2 months ago
Well thought out column. Only one disagreement is the "fighting an unjustified war" in Afghan. If you said Iraq, ok I would somewhat agree. Afghan's leadership pre/post 9/11 was a safe harbor for terrorist who were responsible for the 9/11 events. Were we supposed to just sit around and allow these terrorist to continue their training unchallenged?
Great article though!
jrhmueller 1 year, 2 months ago
The need to retain privacy and humility is much stronger for women and children than men, based on the comments by men verses women following this article. This needs to be the first concern of the TSA, no matter the gravity of the ghosts they are chasing. Those currently present are more important than those potentially present. That said, the TSA devices are not magical or infallible and I know they are not very effective. I am a chemical engineer and used to work on fuel cell development. I used the exact chemicals that terrorists used to make bombs and had the residue all over my shoes from work. I flew regularly and never once had anyone ask me why there was ammonium nitrate all over my shoes. The Israeli airlines have people profiling all passengers with personal interview questions in the line to check in and they, as far as I knew, did not scan people to reveal their nakedness in the name of security. They did have private areas where individuals went for further scanning. I was scanned in one of these areas. I had to remove my shoes for examination and have my clothes sniffed. There was no invasive groping, or any human contact other than questions before I entered the private area. Security is a real need, but the quick way to it is not the best, most effective or sensible. I think dogs, personal interrogation of all passengers and air marshals is the most realistic way to go. Technology can not solve the most complicated problems, because the most complicated problems are between people.
Sign in to comment
Or login with:
OpenID