On Security
In response to a friend's exhortion that those opposed to full-body scans at airports should just not fly, I responded with...
I can't say I agree.
If you're uncomfortable with being publicly strip-searched in a crowded airport, then you should be uncomfortable with being scanned by this radio-wave body imager. The process may be quicker, but the effect is pretty much the same. You are photographed unclothed, and that image will find its way into storage and-eventually-out into the public.
You can argue without end that pubic exposure won't happen, but I am absolutely sure that authorities will eventually demand these images be archived for security reasons, and eventually be stolen by idiots wanting creepy, naked shots of celebrities or whatever else. History and an understanding of human fallibility instills me with confidence in this matter.
There are sniffers out there that will detect chemical bombs more effectively than radio scanners, without the total invasion of privacy. You can't build a bomb without chems, so bombing is over. And the days of hijacking are over. The people on an airplane will never again respond passively to knives and guns.
Before we begin a deep dive into the unnecessary and invasive imaging and studying the millions of naked bodies passing through our airports every year, let's first consider just nailing down our current precautions. In both instances of near-bombings, the bombers in question should have been apprehended by CURRENT security procedure. Sloppy security here is to blame. Not the lack of nude photos.
Travel should not require the complete abandonment of all privacy and dignity. It's always easy to argue for more security. That's an argument that can be made ad infinum. At what point do you think it should stop? Should security be more important than usability?
Consider what's become known as the Jack Bauer conundrum: do we allow torture in the face of an imminent, major threat in which millions might be killed? Many would argue that the security of millions outweighs the security of the one. The problem is that reality is grossly misrepresented in that simplistic scenario. The reality is that such a scenario is so incredibly rare, and the abuse of such a loophole so sure and pervasive, that to allow for any torture will cause far, far more damage than the possibility of a major attack.
In the last ten years we've had two attempted-but failed-bombings. Both have occurred due to sloppy implementation of then current security protocols, not the lack thereof. Yet in each case we've see more protocols put in place, creating an even greater chance that more mistakes will occur. The more complex a system, the easier it is to foul it up, especially one driven by humans.
I'm all for passive scanning. Hit me with your magnetic fields and chemical sniffers. I'm am NOT okay with active scans, such as radio imaging and pervasive luggage and body searches. I simply do not trust humans, especially those with an excessive and righteous sense of authority.
There simply is more to life than security. A lot more. And I am happy to see there are groups like the ACLU that help pull the knee-jerk reactions of groups like the DHS back towards the middle. The struggle of the privacy and security concerns in this country creates great a balance, one that not every country enjoys. Don't ever forget or devalue that.
I can't say I agree.
If you're uncomfortable with being publicly strip-searched in a crowded airport, then you should be uncomfortable with being scanned by this radio-wave body imager. The process may be quicker, but the effect is pretty much the same. You are photographed unclothed, and that image will find its way into storage and-eventually-out into the public.
You can argue without end that pubic exposure won't happen, but I am absolutely sure that authorities will eventually demand these images be archived for security reasons, and eventually be stolen by idiots wanting creepy, naked shots of celebrities or whatever else. History and an understanding of human fallibility instills me with confidence in this matter.
There are sniffers out there that will detect chemical bombs more effectively than radio scanners, without the total invasion of privacy. You can't build a bomb without chems, so bombing is over. And the days of hijacking are over. The people on an airplane will never again respond passively to knives and guns.
Before we begin a deep dive into the unnecessary and invasive imaging and studying the millions of naked bodies passing through our airports every year, let's first consider just nailing down our current precautions. In both instances of near-bombings, the bombers in question should have been apprehended by CURRENT security procedure. Sloppy security here is to blame. Not the lack of nude photos.
Travel should not require the complete abandonment of all privacy and dignity. It's always easy to argue for more security. That's an argument that can be made ad infinum. At what point do you think it should stop? Should security be more important than usability?
Consider what's become known as the Jack Bauer conundrum: do we allow torture in the face of an imminent, major threat in which millions might be killed? Many would argue that the security of millions outweighs the security of the one. The problem is that reality is grossly misrepresented in that simplistic scenario. The reality is that such a scenario is so incredibly rare, and the abuse of such a loophole so sure and pervasive, that to allow for any torture will cause far, far more damage than the possibility of a major attack.
In the last ten years we've had two attempted-but failed-bombings. Both have occurred due to sloppy implementation of then current security protocols, not the lack thereof. Yet in each case we've see more protocols put in place, creating an even greater chance that more mistakes will occur. The more complex a system, the easier it is to foul it up, especially one driven by humans.
I'm all for passive scanning. Hit me with your magnetic fields and chemical sniffers. I'm am NOT okay with active scans, such as radio imaging and pervasive luggage and body searches. I simply do not trust humans, especially those with an excessive and righteous sense of authority.
There simply is more to life than security. A lot more. And I am happy to see there are groups like the ACLU that help pull the knee-jerk reactions of groups like the DHS back towards the middle. The struggle of the privacy and security concerns in this country creates great a balance, one that not every country enjoys. Don't ever forget or devalue that.