It's all ok as long as they can say they're doing something. Think of the children.Rather than increasing security, the new policy change merely ensures that private citizens who express the wish to travel anonymously are punished for doing so. As Bruce Schneier says, “I don’t think any further proof is needed that the ID requirement has nothing to do with security, and everything to do with control.”
It’s important for private citizens to be able to travel without being tracked if they wish. I am not a criminal. I just don’t believe it’s anybody’s business where I go. I understand the need for ensuring the safety of our transportation infrastructure, and as such, searching passengers before boarding makes sense.
The freedom to travel anonymously also underlies our right to peacefully assemble. When a government tracks its citizens and can arbitrarily decide to limit or cut off travel, that threatens our democracy. This is especially true in our global society, where many people rely on air travel, trains and the highway just to see their families.
TSA’s new policy, which is to focus on finding “dangerous people” rather than objects, poses enormous challenges. It requires that the agency make sweeping judgments about travelers with very little information, and in a very short amount of time. It is simply not feasible to accomplish this accurately.
We need to make sure our airports are safe, but at the same time, we have to be very careful not to destroy the very thing we are trying to protect: our free country.
UPDATE in response to Bunny in the comments:
No, 9/11 was not acceptable. The 9/11 hijackers had valid id and would not have been caught that way.
Ending anonymous travel is one step down the road to 'papers please' everywhere. Because it is none of the government's business where I go within the borders of America. It has nothing to do with having something to hide. The more this becomes the norm, the more likely this will trickle down to other areas. Why not require ID when riding a bus? It sounds silly, but why not? A bus is a large vehicle filled with people that can cause a lot of property damage if it hits the right building. Why not subways? Those are prime terror locations, ask the Aum Shinrikyo. We already require ID to enter a government building, why not every building? That is coming, I used to write software for businesses to scan ID and use biometrics for every visitor to a building.
Money is used by terrorists. We already have to report any transaction over $10,000 (and I think it has been lowered). Anonymous money can't be traced easily and can support terror. Let's eliminate physical money and require ID for all money transfers.
It's all little steps to try to stop terror, but they all can be used for far more sinister purposes. I do believe the government is sincere about using these techniques to prevent another 9/11. But I don't know that these policies have really prevented another 9/11.
There won't be another 9/11 with hijackings. People know better now. Before, the safest thing was to sit down, stay quiet and wait for the plane to land. After 9/11, that became suicide. Fighting back is now the only option. Individuals taking responsibility for their survival.
As far as suggesting something that would improve security, random searches rather than profiled ones would be statistically more effective and would not allow gaming the system like the current way does. [Link]
The MIT research explains it this way: an average airport has the ability to do extra screening on eight percent of the passengers. Currently, the CAPPS system uses profile criteria to choose up to six percent of those people for extra screening, the remaining two percent are selected randomly. But if all eight percent were selected randomly, the MIT research shows there is a better chance of catching terrorists or people hiding weapons. That's because with a purely random system, potential terrorists would have no way of knowing ahead of time if they were likely to receive extra screening and they would have no way of practicing against the system.Yes, Uncle Sam does get a bum rap, if this had an easy solution it would already have been implemented. And as for dystopia, yes this is the greatest country on Earth, and I hope it remains that way. America has skepticism and distrust of authority figures in it's blood. That's part of why we are still the best place.
4 comments:
Sigh... So you're saying 9/11 is acceptable, as long as we can be "free"?? I ask you again, what would you have them DO? What's the big deal about anonymous travel, as long as you have nothing to hide? If Homeland Security cannot establish patterns of suspicious activity, then what do you suggest? They could use their spiffy spy computers to play solitaire while "free" terrorists move in and out of the country unsurveilled. Once again, Uncle gets a bum rap, damned if he does, and condemned if he doesn't. It's one thing to rant about the methods, it's quite another to suggest viable alternatives which will be as successful as the ones they've used so far. I remind you that, as Sept. 11th approaches, there has yet to be a single repeat on U.S. soil. How'd that happen? Were we just lucky?
I note that you have filed this under dystopia. Kinda negative, innit? You do still live in the greatest country in the world...
Re: Update, I'm not sure how secondary searching some travelling granny would be more productive than profiling, but, assuming that's true, would you be happy with random searches? I always thought random drug sampling for Government employees was unfair, unless you could also test Joe Sixpack off the street. So I'm not sure how much I approve of random passenger searches in general. Stands to reason that if you were selected for a random search, you'd pretty much have to tell them your name, show the dreaded ID. Would that be okay with you?
At the risk of sounding argumentative, I must take issue with your assertion that Americans distrust authority figures. Sounds like an opinion. Do you have figures to back it up? An unhealthy approval rating of job performance does not necessarily indicate skepticism and/or distrust. People might expect more, but it doesn't seem like a trust issue to me. Having been on the "Dark Side" for many years, hearing Government in general being accused of Orwellian-type conspiracies and corruption kinda rubs me the wrong way.
Incidentally, I accused Sean of having composed your response and emailing it to you, since it so perfectly mirrored what he'd said to me earlier. Must be a generational thing. Ya think?
Profiling can be subverted. In Israel, there was a rash of women suicide bombers a few years ago. I think in part, because it didn't fit the profile. Random secondary screening can't be subverted because it is random. It is a better application of limited screening resources. Putting the majority of secondary screening on obvious (or not so obvious) criteria means the rules can and will be figured out.
Let me be clear, I do not think the Government is involved in Orwellian conspiracies (I prefer my conspiracies to be fictional), and I believe that most people who work in the civil sector do so at least in part out of a sense of duty to their country.
As for distrust of authority, it is enshrined in the Constitution, with three branched dynamically opposed so no one branch can abuse it's power as well as the Bill of Rights which provided protections from government abuse of powers that were required to get the states to ratify it. That is some healthy distrust of authority and those who would be tempted to abuse it.
Interesting point, about healthy distrust. I took your meaning to be more combative, a disdain for authority in general. There's a lot of that going around, but I don't think it's a majority opinion. Nothing wrong with checks and balances, though, just to keep honest people honest. You can't legislate morality, but you can put controls in place to reduce the possibility of abuse by the relatively few who would be tempted. Wasn't it the late, great Ronnie who said "Trust but verify?" I'm okay with that, but not with the paranoia about Government conspiracy. Thanks for clearing that up.
Post a Comment