Possibly the biggest fuss that I have seen in the news and on Facebook posts in the last couple of weeks has been regarding the new TSA screening that is happening in a lot of airports. Travelers have the choice of being screened with backscatter scanners that reveal a lot of what is under your clothes or being patted down in a very personal way. As always, I have some thoughts about this whole situation.
First, while I understand why people would not like these two choices, few of the outraged appreciate that this is an issue of trade-offs. People reacted with outrage that the government did not offer protection against the underwear bomber last Christmas, but frankly most of the steps the government can take to provide against terrorism require sacrifices to personal privacy. Some people have pointed out that the underwear bomber might not have even been caught using the current scanners. This is possible, but it completely side-steps the real issue that the rights to safety and to privacy are usually at odds with each other and must be balanced. I am not saying that using the scanners is right or wrong, but rather I am saying that by taking the position that using the scanners is wrong you are implicitly saying that you are willing to sacrifice some rights to safety for this right to privacy.
Second, I don't personally like the options much, but since I accept that this is a trade-off, whatever we decide as a society is the proper trade-off is what I am going to accept. Since my threshold for what I consider unreasonable is apparently not as high as many others, I suspect that I will have more to worry about regarding my rights to safety than my rights to privacy. I don't suspect that I'm going to worry much about either, though.
Third, I have heard that a lot of people are going to request pat-downs this holiday season to make a point. Isn't that just ruining things for everyone, though, if it causes congestion in the system. I think it's a selfish way to make a point and I would be irritated if I was flying anywhere this holiday.
Fourth, I am sure this is different for men and women, but I am far less bothered about going through the scanner than through a pat-down. I'm not really scared of the radiation level since I don't travel much and the picture does not feel like it invades my privacy as much as the pat-down would.
Fifth, I heard someone make a point that it was not Christian-like to allow yourself to be exposed like that. I didn't want get into argument about that, but it would be a difficult point to establish through Scripture. It's actually far easier to argue against that point than for it using Scripture. If someone has a scruple about that, though, then it is something I have to respect.
Sixth, Despair.com has a couple of hilarious shirts relating to the issue. I know there have been a lot of jokes about the issue, but those two shirts are my favorite so far.
Finally, and probably most importantly, remember that the TSA employees who are implementing these policies have little to no say in the process, so don't take things out on them when you are being scanned or patted down. If I were a TSA agent, I would not like having to pat people down any more than they would want to be patted down, so I know I wouldn't appreciate people being jerks through the process because they thought the attitude was justified. Take your complaints to the people who actually do something if you really don't like the policy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I didn't realize that the regulations had changed and I went to the airport in Boston a couple weeks ago, ready for my usual routine in the metal detectors. Well, it was picture time and I was in there getting checked out before it dawned on me what it was. Silly me, I was thinking metal detector so I left my license in my back pocket which meant I had to have my right cheek patted. It was a lady and it wasn't a big deal. I think going to a private room would make it weird.
I do understand it is the erosion of our believes and a trade off, so I didn't really think about it. One thing I've heard that is compelling is that the Israeli defense force doesn't do this and they have the safest track record ever. They profile and question (intensely so) each person depending on the profile and then if you aren't getting the answers right, they get a bit more friendly. UK is really big on the questions too. I stumbled there and got caught explaining myself a lot. We could choose one of those but it would require, gulp, profiling the types of people that blow things up.
Love despair.com!
I think the rebuttal to the Israeli way of handling that is if you're willing to put certain groups of people through more intensive scrutiny why give any other group the right to avoid that scrutiny. Profiling by race seems too crude to actually work over the long term. I know that some technologies to profile by anxiety have been considered. That just means that highly-strung people will have to go through the enhanced pat-down.
I have contemplated the questioning process. It seems like it would be too easy for a terrorist group to defeat if they put any effort into it, but maybe there's more to it than having the right answers and demeanor.
I think the Israelis profile in a much more complicated way than race or tension. They have a really good track record of success. I think that's what makes me willing to look at it.
It's hard to argue with success. :)
Well said, all around. I was waiting for you to say something for me to disagree with, but you didn't.
I apparently am not nearly as concerned about personal privacy as most, because I don't care if someone sees an image of me created by the backscatter machine, and I don't really care if I get patted down.
Part of the uproar is from people who don't understand the logistics that the person viewing the image can't actually see you, and that the images are not saved.
But the biggest point is what you covered that you can't have it both ways. Either we have non-invasive security techniques and leave ourselves at somewhat higher degree of risk, or we take steps to prevent terror attacks at the cost of privacy.
The thing that annoys me most is when I hear the morons who complain about their right to fly and how they shouldn't have to endure the security injustices. Flying is not a right. Yet I repeatedly read about people complaining that it's unfair that they're subjected to these policies against their will.
Post a Comment