A few years back, I was dating a woman who was a clinical monitor for pharmaceutical trials, so spent about 50% of her work week travelling, mostly by air. She was also thin, blonde, and in her 20s. She got patted down almost every single flight.
"some are afraid they'll be singled out for harsher treatment, or put on a list for future screening"
This is, of course, the pervasive fear that starts a police state. And, of course, it's true. I, like most people, quietly accept the crap these "security" people throw at me, and thank them for it, because, I, like most people, am terrified of the (non-overseen, non-appealable) power they have over my life.
And don't just dismiss me as being paranoid. I grew up in South Africa, and the same mentality, the same body language, was evident everywhere there --- the average black person would likewise submit to any indignity the police offered up, then would, in the same way as I see in the US, thank them for having just been hassled and harassed, and, of course, for the same reasons; that the police could do what they like to hurt you, and get away with it.
Well, yeah, there was that, though it wasn't really a "I'm gonna blow up this plane" kind of insane. More like a "I'm going to fuck up your life and then show up repeatedly just after last call to blame you at the top of my lungs" kind of insane. Still, that wasn't apparent from a passing glance. I guess, though, the security guys may have dated skinny blondes themselves at some point and just knew, as I now know.
I don't think that anyone would argue that losses of liberty have been an inevitable consequence of the post 9/11 environment, and that in fact, smaller incremental losses are often the precursors of larger infringements on future liberties. However, I believe that most people recognize that certain liberties are worth curtailing in order to make us safer. In other words, you argue that these "incremental losses" lead to changing standards and I would agree and say that's probably what needs to happen in light of the different environment we live in today.
I guess then my question is where do you draw the line? And here I am not saying that the clearly over the line groping that is occuring by some overzealous or perverted TSA agent is an acceptable price to pay for higher security at airports. I believe that clearly crosses the line and measures could be put in place to change this from occurring.
If anything, I read the story in the NY times and think to myself how difficult it must be to create policies that are specifically designed to curb an individual's freedom or personal space in order to create a safer environment because of the potential abuse of power.
I travel to airports every week and the additional security measures that have been implemented do not exactly give me alot of confidence that I am that much safer on my flights nowadays. I think that most of us who do travel that often would subject themselves to "pat downs" or even more embarassing situations if 1)it was done in a manner that preserves one's dignity (I mean how difficult can it be to put up a screen or something) and 2) measures are put in place to prevent the abuse of the aforementioned powers.
I agree with the above to the extent that I don't think the security measures make the US noticeably safer. And it physically pains me to think of the money wasted. I wish we could use standards that were only slightly stricter than we had prior to 9/11, bolt the pilots in, and just accept the tiny tiny tiny risk that something could go badly.
And, for the Bush "terrorism" voters, who are still apparently terrified that OBL will refocus his energies from major cities onto Idaho - hell, how much could 50 million pair of neuticals cost?
I am completely uninpressed by the additional airport security currently in place, quite frankly. Profiling high risk people has nothing to do with those you particularly want to grab, ahem.
The only comment I have is regarding body searches. If someone has a gun and is hiding it, it is going to be in the crotch or in the bra. One of the hardest lessons I have with young police officers is that a crotch grab is a necessary part of a pat frisk.
Yes it is difficult to create effective procedures. That is not the point. The REAL point here, as ALWAYS, is unfettered power. There are plenty of ways to ameliorate this, IF the govt cared about this issue. For example
* what are the criteria by which you land up on the no-fly list (and whatever other secret lists the govt maintains)
* where are the procedures for appealing the fact that you landed up on these lists
* why no (publicly available, over the internet) lists of complaints against each individual officer, so that you, I and the officer's wife can see that office Joe Smith seems to be unusually aggressive in trying to pat down 20-something females?
These are examples I can think of in just twenty seconds that have no real downsides.
Your suggestions do seem to have downsides, Maynard. It's not at all implausible to think that the lists would be less effective if the criteria for inclusion were public, since knowing how to get on the lists means knowing how to stay off. And any accountability-free rating system is subject to abuse, as any user of ratemyprofessors.com--or, say, ordinary anonymous evaluation forms-- knows all too well.
They're not knocking on my door, or taking me away, so what's the problem?
But seriously folks, I think this is a case where people are seeing what they want to see. I look at average airport checker dude and I don't think "sinister hand of the orwellian police state," I think "poor schlub with a lousy job." These guys don't seem super empowered to me.
So when ogged says "They don't speak, for fear of secret government lists," I am skeptical. I think that men often underestimate (vastly) the amount of shit women absorb daily. Men act in amazingly scummy ways to women with disturbing frequency. This is just one more venue where this can manifest. And I suspect unwillingness to protest and confront the issue stems more from a (very depressing, but perhaps accurate) sense that nothing is going to change, so why not just deal with it passively (less flying, etc).
On the policy point, I agree the airport screenings suck. I am less sure that there are transparently obvious ways to make everything better. As usual, everything FL says I basically agree with. This is a tough problem, and unless you want to go all El Al on the problem (which is way more invasive, time consuming, and costly), I don't see any easy solutions.
when ogged says "They don't speak, for fear of secret government lists," I am skeptical.
But it's not Ogged who says it:
Ms. Maurer said she and some other women she had spoken to are wary of complaining in writing, both because of the presumed futility and from fear of being singled out when they travel in the future.
"There is this thing about putting your name out there," she said. "Am I going to end up on some kind of list?"
But I agree that it's a tough problem, and, as I said in the post, I'm not arguing for an end to screenings, just pointing out one way in which "we" almost unconsciously make accomodations to government power.
This is true. I've seen women cry themselves into absolute delirium over being pulled into the pat-down lane. Just the last time I flew, a woman was searched alongside me, and her tears were flowing so powerfully, I started to cry just looking at her (and I'm not a teary guy ... no really, I'm not). She couldn't talk, couldn't even stand up straight, she was crying so bad. My chivalry (normally, a rather dormant thing) almost made me want to say something like "what the hell is wrong with this picture" ... but I stayed quiet obviously.
I guess I could have complained, but why? TSA works secretly, so there is no way to know whether a complaint has any effect (unless you fly all the time, which I don't). Complaints just get thrown into a hole, and every once in a while a functionary comes by and writes a report. What is the actual marginal benefit of whining under those conditions? It doesn't seem to be worth the waste of time (perhaps by design?).
So anyways ... what's the Oggedian opine on those machines they're experimenting with that allow the screeners to see underneath your clothing? I bet you can't wait for that one. (But I mean, personally, I'm actually excited about the prospect of going to war against Iran, because then they'll tell us to stop wearing clothes altogether).
Labs, it's true that knowing how to get on the list means knowing how to stay off, but as things stand it's not much better. Bruce Schneier has outlined a procedure for finding out who among your group should bring down a plane next: have a bunch of guys with as clean records as you have take, say, three flights, all separately. The ones who got pulled out, don't use. The ones who got through all three times, use.
What makes that possible is the mere knowledge that there is a list.
OK - so far everyone agrees that (a) the airport searches and such are of really limited value, and (b) we need to keep them. Can someone, in short, easy words, explain if (a) why (b)?
Assume we start bolting the pilots in. What are the risks of having more limited screenings? Since they had to go with legal weapons and a social hack before, why do we think that terrorists would now be more likely to try to get serious weapons on board? Don't you suspect that any terrorists today might get, maximum, 3 passengers a piece before being overwhelmed by other passengers? Given (a) the huge number of flights, and (b) the insignificant number of terrorist attempts to board planes for these purposes, why is this an unexceptable risk? Or even an unacceptable cost?
Tim: Frankly, I think you're right. However, I believe TSA is really more focused on getting the next Richard Reid, rather than the next Mohammed Atta. Passengers are absolutely not let hijackers slam a plane into a building again. Hell, even on 9/11, once passengers knew what was going on, they didn't let it happen.
I would rephrase your (a) and (b) as (a) the system of searches we have is overly intrusive and inefficient and (b) we need a system (a different system) of searches to minimize the chance of a gun or bomb getting on board.
I really disagree with your earlier post though. "And, for the Bush "terrorism" voters, who are still apparently terrified that OBL will refocus his energies from major cities onto Idaho . . ." You are totally missing the point of the security moms and dads. Everyone knows that Boise and Topeka are low-value targets. However, this is a mobile society, and that means people from Boise and Topeka and Beloxi are mobile too. We red-staters travel to NYC and LA and DC, for business and pleasure, and we do a fair amount of flying in and out of flyover country. We also have family and friends in the largest cities. Thirdly, we have investments, and 9/11 hit us hard in the portfolio. And even if all that weren't true, we would still want to take every action reasonably possible to see that all our countrymen are safe, not just those that live in our particular subdivision.
My bad ogged. I still think there;s a bit of a too quick move from "people are afraid of lists" to "evil big government" going on here.
On the larger point, I don't know that the increased scrutiny -- in its current form -- is worth keeping. I suspect that really effective methods would be more invasive.
And even if all that weren't true, we would still want to take every action reasonably possible to see that all our countrymen are safe, not just those that live in our particular subdivision.
And yet, the most rural states with the lowest probability of being targetted receive more homeland security funds than they know what to do with, while port security goes begging. How many of the voters in the states in the center of the country are returning the funds, so that they can go where they'd do the most good, or lobbying their federal reps to change the allocation formula?
A few years back, I was dating a woman who was a clinical monitor for pharmaceutical trials, so spent about 50% of her work week travelling, mostly by air. She was also thin, blonde, and in her 20s. She got patted down almost every single flight.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 11-23-04 2:24 PM
Yes, but she was also completely fucking insane.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 11-23-04 2:26 PM
"some are afraid they'll be singled out for harsher treatment, or put on a list for future screening"
This is, of course, the pervasive fear that starts a police state. And, of course, it's true. I, like most people, quietly accept the crap these "security" people throw at me, and thank them for it, because, I, like most people, am terrified of the (non-overseen, non-appealable) power they have over my life.
And don't just dismiss me as being paranoid. I grew up in South Africa, and the same mentality, the same body language, was evident everywhere there --- the average black person would likewise submit to any indignity the police offered up, then would, in the same way as I see in the US, thank them for having just been hassled and harassed, and, of course, for the same reasons; that the police could do what they like to hurt you, and get away with it.
Posted by Maynard Handley | Link to this comment | 11-23-04 2:37 PM
Yes, but she was also completely fucking insane.
Well, yeah, there was that, though it wasn't really a "I'm gonna blow up this plane" kind of insane. More like a "I'm going to fuck up your life and then show up repeatedly just after last call to blame you at the top of my lungs" kind of insane. Still, that wasn't apparent from a passing glance. I guess, though, the security guys may have dated skinny blondes themselves at some point and just knew, as I now know.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 11-23-04 2:49 PM
I don't think that anyone would argue that losses of liberty have been an inevitable consequence of the post 9/11 environment, and that in fact, smaller incremental losses are often the precursors of larger infringements on future liberties. However, I believe that most people recognize that certain liberties are worth curtailing in order to make us safer. In other words, you argue that these "incremental losses" lead to changing standards and I would agree and say that's probably what needs to happen in light of the different environment we live in today.
I guess then my question is where do you draw the line? And here I am not saying that the clearly over the line groping that is occuring by some overzealous or perverted TSA agent is an acceptable price to pay for higher security at airports. I believe that clearly crosses the line and measures could be put in place to change this from occurring.
If anything, I read the story in the NY times and think to myself how difficult it must be to create policies that are specifically designed to curb an individual's freedom or personal space in order to create a safer environment because of the potential abuse of power.
I travel to airports every week and the additional security measures that have been implemented do not exactly give me alot of confidence that I am that much safer on my flights nowadays. I think that most of us who do travel that often would subject themselves to "pat downs" or even more embarassing situations if 1)it was done in a manner that preserves one's dignity (I mean how difficult can it be to put up a screen or something) and 2) measures are put in place to prevent the abuse of the aforementioned powers.
Posted by Anonymous | Link to this comment | 11-23-04 4:21 PM
I agree with the above to the extent that I don't think the security measures make the US noticeably safer. And it physically pains me to think of the money wasted. I wish we could use standards that were only slightly stricter than we had prior to 9/11, bolt the pilots in, and just accept the tiny tiny tiny risk that something could go badly.
And, for the Bush "terrorism" voters, who are still apparently terrified that OBL will refocus his energies from major cities onto Idaho - hell, how much could 50 million pair of neuticals cost?
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 11-23-04 5:47 PM
I am completely uninpressed by the additional airport security currently in place, quite frankly. Profiling high risk people has nothing to do with those you particularly want to grab, ahem.
The only comment I have is regarding body searches. If someone has a gun and is hiding it, it is going to be in the crotch or in the bra. One of the hardest lessons I have with young police officers is that a crotch grab is a necessary part of a pat frisk.
Posted by Leo | Link to this comment | 11-23-04 9:15 PM
Yes it is difficult to create effective procedures. That is not the point. The REAL point here, as ALWAYS, is unfettered power. There are plenty of ways to ameliorate this, IF the govt cared about this issue. For example
* what are the criteria by which you land up on the no-fly list (and whatever other secret lists the govt maintains)
* where are the procedures for appealing the fact that you landed up on these lists
* why no (publicly available, over the internet) lists of complaints against each individual officer, so that you, I and the officer's wife can see that office Joe Smith seems to be unusually aggressive in trying to pat down 20-something females?
These are examples I can think of in just twenty seconds that have no real downsides.
Posted by Maynard Handley | Link to this comment | 11-23-04 10:01 PM
Your suggestions do seem to have downsides, Maynard. It's not at all implausible to think that the lists would be less effective if the criteria for inclusion were public, since knowing how to get on the lists means knowing how to stay off. And any accountability-free rating system is subject to abuse, as any user of ratemyprofessors.com--or, say, ordinary anonymous evaluation forms-- knows all too well.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 11-23-04 10:11 PM
They're not knocking on my door, or taking me away, so what's the problem?
But seriously folks, I think this is a case where people are seeing what they want to see. I look at average airport checker dude and I don't think "sinister hand of the orwellian police state," I think "poor schlub with a lousy job." These guys don't seem super empowered to me.
So when ogged says "They don't speak, for fear of secret government lists," I am skeptical. I think that men often underestimate (vastly) the amount of shit women absorb daily. Men act in amazingly scummy ways to women with disturbing frequency. This is just one more venue where this can manifest. And I suspect unwillingness to protest and confront the issue stems more from a (very depressing, but perhaps accurate) sense that nothing is going to change, so why not just deal with it passively (less flying, etc).
On the policy point, I agree the airport screenings suck. I am less sure that there are transparently obvious ways to make everything better. As usual, everything FL says I basically agree with. This is a tough problem, and unless you want to go all El Al on the problem (which is way more invasive, time consuming, and costly), I don't see any easy solutions.
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 11-23-04 10:27 PM
when ogged says "They don't speak, for fear of secret government lists," I am skeptical.
But it's not Ogged who says it:
But I agree that it's a tough problem, and, as I said in the post, I'm not arguing for an end to screenings, just pointing out one way in which "we" almost unconsciously make accomodations to government power.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 11-23-04 10:37 PM
This is true. I've seen women cry themselves into absolute delirium over being pulled into the pat-down lane. Just the last time I flew, a woman was searched alongside me, and her tears were flowing so powerfully, I started to cry just looking at her (and I'm not a teary guy ... no really, I'm not). She couldn't talk, couldn't even stand up straight, she was crying so bad. My chivalry (normally, a rather dormant thing) almost made me want to say something like "what the hell is wrong with this picture" ... but I stayed quiet obviously.
I guess I could have complained, but why? TSA works secretly, so there is no way to know whether a complaint has any effect (unless you fly all the time, which I don't). Complaints just get thrown into a hole, and every once in a while a functionary comes by and writes a report. What is the actual marginal benefit of whining under those conditions? It doesn't seem to be worth the waste of time (perhaps by design?).
So anyways ... what's the Oggedian opine on those machines they're experimenting with that allow the screeners to see underneath your clothing? I bet you can't wait for that one. (But I mean, personally, I'm actually excited about the prospect of going to war against Iran, because then they'll tell us to stop wearing clothes altogether).
Posted by Yuri Guri | Link to this comment | 11-24-04 2:46 AM
Labs, it's true that knowing how to get on the list means knowing how to stay off, but as things stand it's not much better. Bruce Schneier has outlined a procedure for finding out who among your group should bring down a plane next: have a bunch of guys with as clean records as you have take, say, three flights, all separately. The ones who got pulled out, don't use. The ones who got through all three times, use.
What makes that possible is the mere knowledge that there is a list.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 11-24-04 7:57 AM
OK - so far everyone agrees that (a) the airport searches and such are of really limited value, and (b) we need to keep them. Can someone, in short, easy words, explain if (a) why (b)?
Assume we start bolting the pilots in. What are the risks of having more limited screenings? Since they had to go with legal weapons and a social hack before, why do we think that terrorists would now be more likely to try to get serious weapons on board? Don't you suspect that any terrorists today might get, maximum, 3 passengers a piece before being overwhelmed by other passengers? Given (a) the huge number of flights, and (b) the insignificant number of terrorist attempts to board planes for these purposes, why is this an unexceptable risk? Or even an unacceptable cost?
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 11-24-04 8:03 AM
Tim: Frankly, I think you're right. However, I believe TSA is really more focused on getting the next Richard Reid, rather than the next Mohammed Atta. Passengers are absolutely not let hijackers slam a plane into a building again. Hell, even on 9/11, once passengers knew what was going on, they didn't let it happen.
I would rephrase your (a) and (b) as (a) the system of searches we have is overly intrusive and inefficient and (b) we need a system (a different system) of searches to minimize the chance of a gun or bomb getting on board.
I really disagree with your earlier post though. "And, for the Bush "terrorism" voters, who are still apparently terrified that OBL will refocus his energies from major cities onto Idaho . . ." You are totally missing the point of the security moms and dads. Everyone knows that Boise and Topeka are low-value targets. However, this is a mobile society, and that means people from Boise and Topeka and Beloxi are mobile too. We red-staters travel to NYC and LA and DC, for business and pleasure, and we do a fair amount of flying in and out of flyover country. We also have family and friends in the largest cities. Thirdly, we have investments, and 9/11 hit us hard in the portfolio. And even if all that weren't true, we would still want to take every action reasonably possible to see that all our countrymen are safe, not just those that live in our particular subdivision.
Posted by denise | Link to this comment | 11-24-04 9:33 AM
My bad ogged. I still think there;s a bit of a too quick move from "people are afraid of lists" to "evil big government" going on here.
On the larger point, I don't know that the increased scrutiny -- in its current form -- is worth keeping. I suspect that really effective methods would be more invasive.
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 11-24-04 10:30 AM
Something to think about: when will we see the headline "Many men say airport patdowns are a humiliation"?
Posted by 42nd SSD | Link to this comment | 11-24-04 4:00 PM
And even if all that weren't true, we would still want to take every action reasonably possible to see that all our countrymen are safe, not just those that live in our particular subdivision.
And yet, the most rural states with the lowest probability of being targetted receive more homeland security funds than they know what to do with, while port security goes begging. How many of the voters in the states in the center of the country are returning the funds, so that they can go where they'd do the most good, or lobbying their federal reps to change the allocation formula?
Posted by paperwight | Link to this comment | 11-27-04 3:12 PM