I seriously doubt that my friend Paul Rosenzweig, a former Bush-administration DHS official, meant to suggest that Americans don’t fully understand the trade-off between privacy and security in air travel when he told Politico that, in reacting to stories of TSA overreaching (or underreaching, depending upon your perspective), Americans “haven’t considered the other side of the equation.”
As Paul knows, “the other side of the equation” is not that simple. One criticism of the DHS/TSA security protocols is simply that scanning and pat-downs conducted by what are not necessarily the most highly competent of government employees is not the best approach to security. But to have better screening, we need better information — and therein lies the absurdity of our current regime.
Privacy advocates and their allies on Capitol Hill (on both sides of the aisle) have kept the government from looking for patterns in air travelers’ biographies, comings and goings, and the like — what many refer to as “profiling.” But with a little more information on all passengers, and more careful screening of those who raise red flags, the TSA shakedown of pregnant women, small children, and nuns in habit could be made less necessary or at least less intrusive.
Americans are perfectly willing to tolerate a reasonable balance. Physical security is an appropriate part of the equation, and a lot of it has been accepted by the public: Shoes and jackets are removed, ID is shown, etc. But there is a point at which we need to ask whether or not there’s a better approach, and it’s reasonable for Americans to raise that question now.
No approach is without its trade-offs: Better data can lead to fewer passengers feeling like they’ve been physically assaulted on their way to Disney World, but some will no doubt feel that government control of such information is also a frightening prospect. Still, I think most travelers would be more willing to tolerate a question or two about where they are headed than a full-scale junk-touching by a TSA employee.
Are Americans Smart Enough to Understand Airport Security?
The real question is, "Is the TSA Smart Enough to Understand Airport Security?" from what I have seen so far they aren't...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe "privacy advocates" you like to deride are also aware that the same government which is too incompetent to handle the physical screening is very likely too incompetent to handle profiling terribly well, either.
Personally, I'd be happy to answer some Israeli security-style questions before getting on the plane, but I seriously doubt that our government is capable of hiring and training enough skilled questioners to make this technique a useful component of American transportation security.
And data-mining? I've no objection to some of that. Look at a traveler's past history. A 2-month stint in Yemen or Afghanistan ought to get you flagged for some more thorough screening. Are there serious people objecting even to that? Or are you proposing broader data-mining, pulling together flight histories along with credit-card usage and other private data? I have less faith in the government to do that sort of thing right and correctly identify the real risk factors there.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOn average, I fly commercial at least once per week for business, and once per month for pleasure. I really don't want to die because a terrorist blew up my Southwest flight to Tampa (to meet his mentor at USF). The choice is (1) full on profiling with limited, selective and random screenings, pat downs and junk inspection, or (2) no profiling and full on screenings or pat downs and junk inspection of all. Those are really the only choices. And, if we as a society are too politically correct or too sensitive to the feelings of others to say "males under 40 who are from or visited these 12 countries" must be aggressively screened, then it's naked posing and junk inspection for all.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseP.S. - At the risk of further insensitivity, I have a feeling that many of the objections to the new scan technology arise from the false modesty and/or body image issues of the protesters. I doubt if many Brad or Angelina doppelgängers are protesting being scanned. I don't want a bomb on my plane because anyone is too embarrassed to be seen undressed by a stranger in a remote location or touched in an intimate area by a TSA agent.
Neither x-rays nor pat-downs would have caught the last two failed bombing attempts (even if the shoe- and panty-bombers had gone through TSA, which they didn't as they came from outside the US). We're not even screening all the luggage yet, for cri yi.
All this angst is for nothing.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusebwarsch:
Sure, because if you're hot you love to have strangers call each other over to see your naked body on a monitor while you stand helplessly waiting for them to get done looking at your breasts, snap a photo with their iPhones, and wave you through with a wink and a grin.
That's exactly how attractive people feel.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Thanks to TSA's exacting guidelines, rest assured the agent feeling up your junk is a HS/GED alumnus with the ability to lift 70 pounds." -- per Iowahawkblog tweet
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think everyone should remember that it was the Federal Government that failed on 9/11. We shall probably never know the truth in full, but we do know that an FBI SA in Arizona came very close to preventing the terrorist attack at least 3 months prior. And it was pure luck on out part as well as incompetence of the Underwear Bomber that prevent another tragedy a year ago. Ditto for the Times Square Bomber. In each of those cases, political correctness and/or incompetence prevailed at Homeland Security. And let's not even talk about our exposed Southern Borders.
Does anyone really believe that Homeland Security is up to the job?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHey bwarsch, if the terrorist is on your flight because he's on his way to meet someone in Tampa, he's probably not going to blow up the plane on the way there. Blowing up a plane to Tampa and actually going to Tampa are mutually exclusive.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHockeywinger
You nailed it. Seeems that asking the right question can change the debate. Privacy issues - look how much information exists about each of us that is public record. Seems to me it would be easy to assess the risk potential of any traveler based on available public information. What if the airline got to do a credit check when you flew. bwarsch - seems to me that every minute the tsa spends check frequent fliers like you is time wasted. We are paying for something that not only does not increase security, but directs limited resources away from that very objective.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOh please, people understand security just fine. Standard technocrat language. What people don't like is being intimidated and threatened into compliance with a rule they *know* is of marginal utility.
OK, we have these awesome new scanners...so obviously we can keep our shoes and jackets and watches and glasses, etc. on, right? No, in fact, our FAQ says you have to take non-metallic objects out of your pockets too. Oh. So, with these awesome new scanners, we probably don't need to unpack our carry-on bags to remove small liquids, laptops, etc. right? No. Oh.
So, Mr. TSA, what you're telling me is that a) the new technology is only marginally better than what you had yesterday (may see certain objects better, but can't eliminate ANY current security protocols), b) cannot differentiate between actual terrorist threats and a 4-year old child, c) if I call you on it you will threaten me and my family members and then d) tell me I'm too stupid to understand all of this? You know, I think I've got it!
This from the people who think we actually turn off our cell phones on the airplane...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMay I make a modest request? Can we dispense with the use of the word "junk"?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWow - I guess I hit a raw nerve - - sorry, but I said I was risking charges of insensitivity - - however, the scary scenarios ("strangers call each other over to see your naked body on a monitor while you stand helplessly waiting for them to get done looking at your breasts, snap a photo with their iPhones, and wave you through with a wink and a grin") is not the reality - - on the image, your face is obscured, and it's displayed in another room, not to anyone in the same room as you (unlike the xray of your luggage). There's no one looking at your image and then winking and grinning at you as you walk by.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd "he's probably not going to blow up the plane on the way there"? Really? Aren't most of the 9/11 terrorists in heaven with their virgins?
Of course, erik is correct - checking "frequent fliers" is "time wasted", particularly folks like me who commute between remote offices. But that would be . . . PROFILING!!!
I always think of Chris Rock's jokes regarding his post 9/11 reevaluation of profiling . . . it was still bad as to those operating motor vehicles, but suddenly made sense to him as an airport security precaution.
TSA at work (WARNING: The link goes to the type of story that Jonah would post) External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusebwarsh, you said the terrorist is on his way to visit his mentor in Tampa. He can't blow up the plane on the way there if he's going to Tampa for a reason. You understand that if you're going to visit someone, and you kill yourself on the way there, you never get to visit that person?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusebwarsch:
I was going to add a few comments along with this link to a series of images: External Link
I think Corona79's link pretty much says it all. If there's one thing I can add: I suppose I should be comforted by the fact that the guy(s) looking at the naked photos is relegated to telling his buddies he's got a hot one he'll show them at break time, rather than calling them over straight away, but the fact that the image is destined for internet fame within a few seconds sorta robs me of that comfort.
Just think, bwarsch... if you're in line behind a hot girl, there's some chance you'll be able to see her naked over the airport WiFi, minutes after she passes through the security line. heck, and enterprising* image reader could set up a ustream link and just broadcast the images in real time, to whomever he likes! Including the guys down by the scanner, who can pull people aside at their discretion...
Have a peep, cop a feel, and get thanked for the privilege. What a job!
/sarcasm
*by 'enterprising', I mean every half-wit with an iPhone and a pulse.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCorona79...you realize that story you linked to is a joke, right?? I mean, i'm with you, i think these procudures are worthless and far too invasive. But, c'mon, it's satire!! DOH!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLife imitates art... is it really so far out of the realm of possibility?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's all a joke .. keep laughing .. but don't click: External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think it is important to get the principles right.
I don't want to be perfectly safe. Since I am alive and rational, I know that is impossible. Expensive and elaborate security procedures won't make me immortal, and I'm not a coward.
I do want to be free. If that means accepting a little danger, whoopie do, I get danger with my breakfast cereal. Going to war with the enemies who want to kill us isn't perfectly safe either, but it is what free men who aren't cowards do when attacked.
Now, can we please stop pretending that we don't know who those enemies are? Do you know what we gain by absurd political correctness in airport screening procedures? Not a darn thing. We don't gain any civil liberties because the current matters under discussion prove to a demonstration we do not have any.
We are surrounded by crazy people who think it just horrible to discriminate against the people actually trying to kill us but perfectly acceptable to grope every harmless 20 something woman flying domestic. We need to tell them to lump it. If they want security they can discriminate. If they are willing to sacrifice security for civil liberties, they are trying to save the wrong ones for the wrong people. And we will have none of it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell put and ditto, JasonC.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse