Security vs. Privacy

[Inactive Account]

This is mainly in light of the TSA's new policy of violating the constitutional rights of all airline travelers: in order to pass through airport security in the US, a traveler (this includes pilots and flight crews) must now submit to either a scan in a backscatter X-ray or millimeter wave scanning machine, which captures images of the person through their clothes (essentially a virtual strip search), or a combination of a standard metal detector and a rigorous, invasive pat-down that includes close examination of the groin. However, it's a general issue we've been facing, too, with various other measures taken against privacy pretty much everywhere.

The question: When is it justified to ignore people's rights to privacy in the name of safety? How much privacy, in exchange for how much safety?

[BEST TRYNDAMERE PLAYER]

As awkward as this might seem it's actually not a bad idea even if it might seem unnecessary. A lot of people are generally paranoid of bombing/hijacking attempts and this does significantly reduce those chances(although there's not much of a chance of those occurring anyways nowadays). Besides, who cares if people see you naked via digital imaging or have to kinda touch you up for a second? We are all animals afterall.

Forgot to add one more thing: If it wasn't for the fact that people can hide things anally I'd be against this and would think this is a retarded idea but since it is possible to hide certain illegal things just by shoving it up your ass well....yeah.

Edited November 17, 2010 by Joey

[Inactive Account]

Thing is, they aren't actually very effective. They don't pick up on things in body cavities, and that's really where a terrorist is going to put whatever they're trying to bring in. So the only way to be really, really thorough is a cavity search. They can not, they will not institute those as the norm (if they try, the industry will simply collapse in the US, and we'll be looking at a massive, massive court case).

As for why care: It's sexual assault, really. People have serious religious and personal reasons to not want to be seen naked (it makes me really damn uncomfortable, especially since I have no idea who's viewing it, and there have already been abuses reported). There are even more serious reasons-- the scanners immediately show surgical scars, whether you're transsexual, even if you're on your period, if you're female. People shouldn't be forced to reveal such personal things. If anyone other than the government were to do this without permission, they could and would be tried for sexual assault. And if I refuse to let them strip search me I shouldn't have to be groped in order to catch my flight home; the same personal reasons for not being strip-searched generally apply to groping just as much, if not more so. Again, sexual assault. Furthermore, the images the scanners take can and have been leaked. And they do this to everyone-- men, women, teenagers, little kids. The US military won't even do this to civilians in Afghanistan; the TSA has no qualms about doing it to civilians here.

Overall I think the right to refuse unwarranted searches should be upheld, and it clearly is not being upheld here. The agreement I make when I buy a plane ticket has a bunch of terms about whether I can or can't get a refund and so on, but nothing about agreeing to let anyone run their hands or eyes all over my body.

[Balcerzak]

I'm surprised to hear of this, considering I just flew twice within the past week (DTW->IAD and vice versa) and didn't encounter either AIT (advanced imaging technology) or "enhanced pat downs". I did some research after you mentioned it on IRC though, and I have to admit that the measure being taken are beyond what should be expected.

From a US viewpoint, current jurisprudence on the subject of the fourth amendment hinges on the test for a "reasonable expectation of privacy" and whether or not such expectation is being violated. Now, it's quite well conceded that the administrative searches undertaken in airports diminishes the level of the expectation of privacy of individuals wishing to fly, I'm still quite confident that strip searches and genital contact go well over the line, and should always be considered reasonable expectations of privacy, barring extent factors like legitimate direct suspicion that the individual in question poses a clear and present danger or that there exist other probable cause of them having committed a crime. Simply seeking to board an aircraft, or refusing to consent to a search are not factors that meet this criterion, however.

Edit: I got the acronym wrong (AID, AIT, devices, technology... whatever).

Edited November 17, 2010 by Balcerzak

[Meteor]

In my opinion, it is never okay to ignore privacy for anything less than 100% security, and maybe not even then.

Alright, so not only do the machines display essentially nude images, they emit a lot of radiation, making them a health concern as well. If they can't detect items in body cavities, and they can give you cancer, what is the fucking point? That's what I want to know. Removing shoes and walking through metal detectors seems reasonable to me.

[Silvercrow]

It's not so much that I feel VIOLATED by the scanner whatever things, but I would feel a whole lot better about it if the TSA actually stopped any serious threat. Ever. It's just another unnecessary security measure that doesn't help anybody. I mean, I've accidentally brought water bottles through security before despite the ban on liquids. Someone really bent on hijacking a plane or whatever would find a better way to get stuff through. I dunno if it's true or not, but somebody told me a story about a guy who got through security with a gun on him, realized it in the terminal, and went back to turn it in. They then had to ground all the flights and make everyone go back through security because of their hilarious incompetence.

[Phoenix Wright]

As awkward as this might seem it's actually not a bad idea even if it might seem unnecessary.

wat.

A lot of people are generally paranoid of bombing/hijacking attempts and this does significantly reduce those chances(although there's not much of a chance of those occurring anyways nowadays).

So, since they're uncommon, we should totally go all out in our regulations, right? Why not bring a small fraction of the Army into California for crimes that might happen? Right?

Besides, who cares if people see you naked via digital imaging or have to kinda touch you up for a second? We are all animals afterall.

I fail to see the connection. Animals don't like to be violated either.

[lolDeath]

Paranoid fucks are going to take the airline industry to an all new low. It doesn't matter what security features they use, there is always going to be a way to get something through and any incredibly invasive measure (like this) isn't going to do anything but lull people into a false sense of security.

[BEST TRYNDAMERE PLAYER]

wat.

So, since they're uncommon, we should totally go all out in our regulations, right? Why not bring a small fraction of the Army into California for crimes that might happen? Right?

I fail to see the connection. Animals don't like to be violated either.

Call me a douchebag but I made that reply knowing people would disagree with me. I kinda made that reply to see if I would get any reaction. Besides, it's pretty boring when everyone agrees with each other.

If you want my real opinion, yes I think this whole thing is pretty retarded. I think today's security measures are fine the way it is even if it is executed very poorly sometimes.

[Original Alear]

Joey,

can you at least explain the statement:

Besides, who cares if people see you naked via digital imaging or have to kinda touch you up for a second? We are all animals afterall.

[Phoenix Wright]

Call me a douchebag but I made that reply knowing people would disagree with me. I kinda made that reply to see if I would get any reaction. Besides, it's pretty boring when everyone agrees with each other.

If you want my real opinion, yes I think this whole thing is pretty retarded. I think today's security measures are fine the way it is even if it is executed very poorly sometimes.

The last comment you had there really made me question you, haha. :P

[BEST TRYNDAMERE PLAYER]

Joey,

can you at least explain the statement:

The animal thing? Yeah, we have similar genes to those of primates and primates are considered animals iirc.

The last comment you had there really made me question you, haha. :P

Yeah, I might have crazy ideas but I can't really support this because really, it's plain unnecessary. If they want to beef up security they just need to hire better security instead of keeping the somewhat incompetent ones we have now.

[lolDeath]

They should just hire a bouncer.

[Inactive Account]

People have been talking a lot about the security methods used in Israeli airports and it seems like rather a better idea. If we want to keep terrorists off our planes, we ought to learn from countries who deal with more terrorists than we do.

I think the main problem is that people are willing to settle for something that makes it look like the government is being very diligent and competent about protecting them, rather than having the government actually do so, even if it looks more open. I'm not much of a fan of buzzwords but "security theater" is pretty accurate. They make it look like they're doing a good job, but let a ridiculous number and variety of things through.

So basically, people are willing to sacrifice their dignity in order to pretend they're safe.

[Kay]

I think that, security-wise, it's stupid. It's been publicly stated multiple times that their scanners can't see anything in body cavities. So, they've essentially broadcast "Hey, potential terrorists! Stick your bombs up your ass and we can't stop you!" worldwide. Therefore, it's just another useless security measure that does nothing but annoy and offend everyone.

Privacy-wise, I don't see the problem. 100% of humans have genitals. Most adults aren't particularly surprised by that. For that matter, most young children aren't surprised by it. So why should I care if someone can see what I look like naked?

[Phoenix Wright]

So basically, people are willing to sacrifice their dignity in order to pretend they're safe.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

[Zanarkin]

100% of humans have genitals. Most adults aren't particularly surprised by that. For that matter, most young children aren't surprised by it. So why should I care if someone can see what I look like naked?

Why do we wear clothes in public then?

(aside from really cold places)

[eclipse]

Why do we wear clothes in public then?

(aside from really cold places)

so I don't get lynched for being unsightly

Clothes do more than cover your vital areas. They provide protection from the elements (sunlight and cold, among others), help keep smells down, and are a way of expressing who you are.

"My, that evening gown looks lovely on you! What do you mean you're a guy?!"

[Inactive Account]

Privacy-wise, I don't see the problem. 100% of humans have genitals. Most adults aren't particularly surprised by that. For that matter, most young children aren't surprised by it. So why should I care if someone can see what I look like naked?

It's more than "oh I am virtually naked and that's sort of embarrassing." Some people have things they want to hide for completely legitimate personal reasons: prostheses, surgical scars, colostomy bags, and such. One breast cancer survivor (a flight attendant!) was forced to remove her prosthetic breast at a checkpoint. Some people have psychological reasons, especially victims of sexual abuse. And some people have personal standards of modesty they want to keep, religious or otherwise. I suppose from a viewpoint of complete logic that's silly, but people are far from completely logical. Besides, it's a strip search without warrant or probable cause. The Constitution's pretty clear that that is not at all allowed, and yet... here we are.

There's also a sexual element; while the majority of people are not all that attractive, there's been a reported tendency at places that randomly select instead of putting everyone through the scanner for young women to be picked more often to go through. One flight crew member traveling with his eighteen-year-old daughter heard an officer tell his colleague in the screening room over the headset, "Heads up, got a cutie for you." Nobody should have to go through that.

And of course the pat-downs kind of turn into spectacle in that regard; their hands go everywhere, and even if the screener isn't getting anything out of it (and I imagine many don't, this isn't what they signed on for) there are passengers hanging around to watch. And of course if you're an abuse or rape victim, being touched all over is going to be traumatizing all over again. Some people just can't stand being touched, and don't want to or can't go through the scanner. You have to hold still for a few seconds for the scanner; what if someone has, say, an autistic child who has problems holding still, and freaks out when touched? Are they just not going to let the kid fly? (Obviously, the kid's a terrorist!)

[lolDeath]

One flight crew member traveling with his eighteen-year-old daughter heard an officer tell his colleague in the screening room over the headset, "Heads up, got a cutie for you." Nobody should have to go through that.

This is what I think people aren't really thinking enough about. It's not just a machine that can kind of see through your clothes, it isn't just some super professional asexual entity who has been rigorously screened for optimal performance looking. It's just some random person.

Their penis could be out.

It could! It's either "let me see you naked" or "let me grope the fuck out of you" now. Maybe cruiseships are going to make a comeback.

Also if anyone wants to genuinely pull that moderately funny troll some FESSers did a while back with "YOU ARE BRAINWASHED INTO WEARING CLOTHES" I expect you to live in a fucking nudist colony.

[Kay]

Why do we wear clothes in public then?

(aside from really cold places)

The same reason we wear clothes anywhere. Clothing is practical.

It's more than "oh I am virtually naked and that's sort of embarrassing." Some people have things they want to hide for completely legitimate personal reasons: prostheses, surgical scars, colostomy bags, and such. One breast cancer survivor (a flight attendant!) was forced to remove her prosthetic breast at a checkpoint.

I do not see why that is so different. Although, I am willing to admit that others may see more of a difference. Even then, I suspect that is not true of the majority of complainers.

Some people have psychological reasons, especially victims of sexual abuse. And some people have personal standards of modesty they want to keep, religious or otherwise. I suppose from a viewpoint of complete logic that's silly, but people are far from completely logical. Besides, it's a strip search without warrant or probable cause. The Constitution's pretty clear that that is not at all allowed, and yet... here we are.

I will concede this point.

Some people are farther from completely logical than others.

There's also a sexual element; while the majority of people are not all that attractive, there's been a reported tendency at places that randomly select instead of putting everyone through the scanner for young women to be picked more often to go through. One flight crew member traveling with his eighteen-year-old daughter heard an officer tell his colleague in the screening room over the headset, "Heads up, got a cutie for you." Nobody should have to go through that.

Yes. So? As far as security is concerned, that's dumb. But you seem to be arguing about the privacy aspect. Why is this important? It's not like they're going to go rape someone because they looked good on the scanner.

And of course if you're an abuse or rape victim, being touched all over is going to be traumatizing all over again. Some people just can't stand being touched, and don't want to or can't go through the scanner.

There can't be that many people who have serious psychological issues with the pat-down, as well as being unable to go through the scanner. Usually, general "solutions" discriminate against some minority of people. That's life. Universal fairness is one of the silliest and most impractical goals there are.

You have to hold still for a few seconds for the scanner; what if someone has, say, an autistic child who has problems holding still, and freaks out when touched? Are they just not going to let the kid fly? (Obviously, the kid's a terrorist!)

That sort of thing is why it's bad to have autism. Autistic children are not the majority of travelers. Furthermore, there are all kinds of situations that autistic children have trouble with. Obviously it is a valid problem, but there are many bigger problems.

This is what I think people aren't really thinking enough about. It's not just a machine that can kind of see through your clothes, it isn't just some super professional asexual entity who has been rigorously screened for optimal performance looking. It's just some random person.

Their penis could be out.

It could! It's either "let me see you naked" or "let me grope the fuck out of you" now.

I still fail to understand why this matters.

Probably I am going to concede this debate. Too much of it is emotional instead of logical, and mutual lack of understanding is no fun for anyone. In addition, I am not really defending either the scanners or the pat-downs. It's a dumb attempt at security, and I have a low opinion of it as well. Just to clarify that.

[Defeatist Elitist]

Also if anyone wants to genuinely pull that moderately funny troll some FESSers did a while back with "YOU ARE BRAINWASHED INTO WEARING CLOTHES" I expect you to live in a fucking nudist colony.

I can beat this! You are brain washed into wearing clothes, and your complacence and orthodoxy contributes to a climate in which I cannot fully participate in our society without wearing clothes. You're directly aiding in my oppression, because I will never be able to accomplish my goals in life unless I do as your arbitrary society demands, and wear clothing.

[lolDeath]

The most reasonable of the last two posts was a joke

I FUCKING LOVE THIS AREA

[Defeatist Elitist]

The most reasonable of the last two posts was a joke

I FUCKING LOVE THIS AREA

Should I quickly stop joking about it or something?

[Nightmare]

Don't. I'll let these few posts slide, but please stop the spamming and continue discussing about security vs. privacy, if you have anything to say (that is not a joke/spam post).

Edited November 30, 2010 by Nightmare