...in a close vote, it's being reported that ballots are being analyzed where voters didn't follow direction to determine what they intended. Here's an idea: if they didn't follow directions, or if we have to have analysts trying to figure out what they meant, their vote doesn't count. Period. Seems most rational to me.
I agree there is no such thing as a "holiday tree". And I don't see why government buildings need to be decorated for any religious holidays anyway. But I'm certainly not going to get bent out of shape over a Christmas tree outside a government building. Christmas is a cultural holiday here at least as much as a religious one, whatever you think it should really be about. I'd have a problem with a nativity. I don't want my government endorsing or conveying religion, even if it's one I believe in, because one day it will not be one I believe in, and I want my government principle-oriented, not dogma-oriented. But a tree is not a nativity.
Those who think it's some drastic, awful invasion of privacy to have to choose between going through a scanner at the airport or being hand-searched, the phrase repeatedly going through my head while listening to all the griping is: get the @#$% over it! Seriously, I just don't get it. There are reasons to dispute certain methods, but this extreme discomfort over being given options you don't like is...kind of weird to me. But maybe I'm just unusually unconcerned about whether some TSA employee sees a high-def outline of my body features (one of hundreds they'll see daily) or whether someone brushes my privates while searching for hidden weapons. I just...don't...get it...
8 comments:
I highly disagree with issue #3 there. It bothers me to see the government allowing greater invasions of privacy as a trade of for marginally improved security. There is so much fearmongering that goes on these days, and I think fear is the worst way to motivate change. I'll take facts over fear any day. Until we see clear evidence of full body scans stopping terrorists, I will not hesitate to express my disgust with laws like this.
IK, I understand your feeings; however, truth is that weaponry is becoming more and more sophisticated and easily hidden from traditional detection. Truth also is that the radical faction will stop at nothing to terrorize the US. Further truth is the threat is real . . . it's not fear mongering. Let 'em Xray.
What, to you, is so invasive about a full body scan? Because the fear-mongering I see is coming from those objecting to "being virtually strip-searched", which I don't believe accurately describes these machines. What I _am_ suspicious of is that the government isn't releasing images from the machines to openly/"transparently" show us what we'll look like going through them. But even if some agent in a room will see my body shape and the outline of my junk, I just don't get the fear and upset about it.
And if I understand/have heard correctly, you can opt out of the scan in favor of a pat-down, which they already do anyway in many cases, except now they're *gasp* using the fronts of their hands instead of only the backs. And again, I'm amazed that this bothers people. How did we become so incredibly hypersensitive about our bodies as to become paranoid about the distinction between searching for hidden objects and sexual groping, or so amazingly proud as to associate a pat-down with a reduction of dignity? Where does that come from? It's silly to me.
If we can reduce the number of people stopping to be wanded or patted down and greatly increase the efficiency of airport security, whether or not there's a huge increase in effectiveness, I'd love that. BUT I still want to see the cost analysis and demonstration that these machines greatly reduce long lines at security check points. AND images from the scanners (not the stupid fake ones that keep floating around the web that supposedly show how easy it is to turn a scan into erotica). AND strict rules enforcing the use of the images, guarding their exclusive use in security, and the procedures for pat-downs to guard against abuses. AND thorough analysis of the long-term effects of regular exposure to the radiation of the machines (for frequent travelers). Those concerns I identify with.
Oh, and I was also going to say that if enough Americans are so bothered by the scanners that they start opting for pat-downs instead, and THAT slows lines down, then we obviously still have an efficiency problem not resolved by the scanners. ...except that if they separate scanner-friendly folks and festering pat-down opters, we scanner-cavalier types will get through even faster...so come to think of it, maybe there's a silver lining for me in this body-shame cloud after all... :-)
It's not just about being invasive (though it *is* invasive), it's the principle of the matter. This is just one of many ways the government is gradually infringing upon our 4th amendment rights (privacy of each person and his/her possessions against unreasonable searches).
@Lee- are you saying previous scanners/security measures weren't up to cuff, that is wasn't just human error at fault?
I'm not a conspiracy theorist by any means, but why willingly give up our rights and naively trust that every government-run agency is 100% right? Aren't we allowed, as citizens, to think for ourselves here? There are so many reasons these new TSA regulations are bunk... and sure, I do happen to highly value my privacy (as you can tell), not to mention that as a woman, I have more parts I'd like to keep private :P
Aside from privacy concerns, I'd also note-
- lack of efficiency (like J mentioned)
- effectiveness
- health concerns (again, thanks J)
- cost (how many government $$ are going into this? I'm sure these scanners aren't cheap...)
- going beyond what is considered a "reasonable" search IMO - airports aren't the only target for terrorist attacks. So does this warrant placing full body scanners in schools, shopping malls, etc? They'll keeping using your worst fears against you until there really is no limit to their power...WHERE do you draw the line? And why are we trusting that it's ok to give up our rights just because these people have TSA badges?
There are valid arguments to both sides, so it reduces to a matter of individual priority. We're "chasing" the technological advances in weaponry with advances in security. Air travel appears to be a favorite target of terrorists, so that's where we concentrate most of the effort and cost.
No one is comfortable with pat-downs or full body scans. But I'd be even less comfortable knowing the goverment isn't trying to stay on top of the threat. It's the threat of terrorism that makes me cringe every time I fly, not the threat of intrusive security measures. One threatens my life. The other threatens my privacy. It's a personal choice.
Do I believe it may be a step toward even more governmental intrusion? Possibly. Does the risk of health effects concern me? Yes. Do I think the government does a good job of most things? No. Do I think it's a necessary evil. Yes.
Honestly, I think we should take the same measures to maximize safe travel as those taken in Israel, which reportedly has the most secure airports in the world in spite of the real and present dangers they face from terrorist countries every day.
My most recent response to ImpK hasn't been posted, but I've modified my position since that time, so it's OK.
I know we've been trying to stay on top of the terrorists' technological advances in weaponry, particularly the ways in which they're able to get bombs onto airplanes; I believe the government has a constitutional obligation to protect us; and I believe that drastic measures may have to be taken, including giving up some of our privacy rights, if it means minimizing the risk that I'll be blown up in mid air. I'd rather relinquish my right to modesty rather than increasea the risk of death in order to protect it.
Having said that, the over exposure to radiation is a potential problem for frequent fliers, and I've become very concerned about the lack of judgement being used by TSA employees when using the pat-down method, many incidents of which are now being reported.
In a recent interview on one of the cable news channels, a woman familiar with the Israeli system reported that in Israel they use neither x-rays nor pat-downs, and they are considered the safest country for air travel, in spite of the many threats they face from hostile neighbors.
Israeli airports employ security personnel who are well trained in a type of profiling not yet practiced in the U.S. They don't consider passengers' physical characteristics or countries of origin. Rather, they study each passenger's behavior, including body language, facial expressions, and other behavioral factors, and have been successful in identifying those who pose a threat. I understand there is also an armed "air marshal" on each flight.
Granted, Israel is a small country with far fewer airports or airport personnel than in the U.S., so it's easier for them to hire people with the appropriate psychological training. However, it obviously works without creating the privacy issues with which we're currently dealing, and it's more effective.
So perhaps the U.S. government should get a clue and learn from the Israelis. In the meantime, I'm willing to put up with the current system or elect not to fly for a finite period of time until the government gets its ducks in a row, if it ever does.
Impossible K, I never said anything about "trusting" anyone just because of a badge or because it's government. Pish tosh.
I honestly just really don't see how this is any more an invasion of privacy than what's already being done. So...they can see my body shape. What of it? *shrug* You may see it as just another step on a slippery slope, but I...I guess I think the concern is silly, to be honest, so maybe we have to just agree to disagree. Since I don't see this as some additional intrusion on my privacy but rather a different form of search, it's not, to me, a matter of principle. I mean, am I supposed to be upset that they can see I have chapstick in my pocket or might get a bit of a notion about what my junk looks like? Maybe I'm not being creative enough in thinking about the ways this technology can be misused. Call me naive, but I am not bovvered. Maybe I need to examine the definition of privacy more and try to see whether this is, objectively, an increased intrusion on privacy.
I've heard discussion on the radio about Israeli security, and though I don't know if that would ever fly or could possibly be implemented here in any quality way (imagine the training involved), I think it should be employed to whatever extent possible.
But let's set policy aside, for a moment, to get back to my original reason for even bringing this up: the majority of the outrage I have heard is not rational. Period. It's based on discomfort and shock and upset sensibilities about what is proper or dignified. And it's not only the presence but the apparent severity of those fears which has truly amazed me. But the funny thing is I probably would've been firmly on the anti-scanner bandwagon 15 years ago because of my own extreme modesty and discomfort with the idea of a pat down, so I try to remember that and consider it.
But as I see things now, I can't help but think either Americans are irrationally and pointlessly puritanical in certain ways, or many are using irrational, reactionary hyperbole for political leverage (as usual), but my suspicion is...both.
Post a Comment