A nude awakening — TSA and privacy

[SecularMotion]

COLUMN: A nude awakening — TSA and privacy

Evan DeFilippis/The Daily

Monday, 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.

http://oudaily.com/news/2010/dec/06/column-nude-awakening-tsa-and-privacy/

[immoderate]

1. Woe is us when they find the first suppository bomb.

I remember once (during Mayor Koch in NYC) there was a brutal knifing on the subway. The mayor's response was to call for stricter gun laws. :wtf:

--imm

[Anakin Skywalker]

2. Why "Could Be Worse"? How about "Could Be Better"?

Authoritarian types are always using the "could be worse" scenario to scare people into complying.

Look here, I'm going to spank you with this ruler, but if you cry, you'll get hit with a 2 x 4 next!

[Heywood J]

3. Reading the comments, I get sick of people repeating claptrap

that we should profile Muslims or Arabs because "they're the ones that hijack aircraft".

Statistically speaking, it appears that Americans and Cubans have a lock on hijacking aircraft, but other countries aren't that far behind.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/List_of_Cuba_%E2%80%93_United_States_aircraft_hijackings
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings

It's something useful to argue with the right-wingers, at least.