Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Airline "security"
Mountains
Veteran
Welcome to America in the 21st Century. Very soon, every airport in the US with scheduled passenger service will be equipped with backscatter x-ray scanners. If you're not familiar, these machines produce an x-ray picture that essentially removes all of your clothing, allowing the operator to 'see' your naked body (Google this for images - I'm not going to link one here). In itself, this is wrong on so many levels I can't even get into all of them. In my own case, I've already received my full lifetime's dose of radiation due to my cancer treatment. My card is full. I don't want or need any more.
If you choose not to be subjected to the x-ray, you are now *required* to submit instead to a thorough pat-down search of your body. The TSA makes no bones about the fact that they *will* grope your genitals, and womens' breasts in these pat-downs. Their claim is, when you buy an airline ticket, you give up your rights as a citizen. This includes the right not to be physically assaulted. This type of groping, if done by anyone else (including a police officer anywhere other than at an airport security checkpoint) would be illegal. But not at the airport. Oh, and children are not excluded. There is YouTube video of a four year old little girl being very roughly treated by a TSA officer trying to do a pat-down.
Here's a link to a story about the outcome of one of these encounters:
http://johnnyedge.blogspot.com/2010/11/these-events-took-place-roughly-between.html
So my question is, as a Buddhist, I'm not supposed to let my ego get in the way of things. But I'll be *damned* if I'm going to submit to this. I've already drafted letters to all three of my members of Congress about it. This is a situation I don't feel I can "just let go" since it has such potential to harm so many people on so many levels. So what to do??
If you choose not to be subjected to the x-ray, you are now *required* to submit instead to a thorough pat-down search of your body. The TSA makes no bones about the fact that they *will* grope your genitals, and womens' breasts in these pat-downs. Their claim is, when you buy an airline ticket, you give up your rights as a citizen. This includes the right not to be physically assaulted. This type of groping, if done by anyone else (including a police officer anywhere other than at an airport security checkpoint) would be illegal. But not at the airport. Oh, and children are not excluded. There is YouTube video of a four year old little girl being very roughly treated by a TSA officer trying to do a pat-down.
Here's a link to a story about the outcome of one of these encounters:
http://johnnyedge.blogspot.com/2010/11/these-events-took-place-roughly-between.html
So my question is, as a Buddhist, I'm not supposed to let my ego get in the way of things. But I'll be *damned* if I'm going to submit to this. I've already drafted letters to all three of my members of Congress about it. This is a situation I don't feel I can "just let go" since it has such potential to harm so many people on so many levels. So what to do??
0
Comments
I don't mean to diminish the strong perspectives that people have on matters such as these, as they do emanate from the heart. However, the video and blogs point out to me an even more important point: Be knowledgeable about security methods before you travel by air and don't hold up the line by jumping out and staging a protest. That will make lots of peoples miss their flights, plus possibly raise red flags to security personnel that perhaps you're creating a distraction for terrorists to get through.
On one level or another not one thing in this "naughty world" makes any sense at all or is really fair. Nonetheless, I don't feel that there is anything so special about me (not my health, not my naked image on a screen...) that overrules pursuit of a common good as seen by those whose job it is to identify what threatens it most and then address those things appropriately. That said, I too would not like to be groped in certain areas by strangers —anywhere.
Just hoping to make you smile
As buddhists we sometimes get angry and it is a challenge to react skillfully even though we are impassioned.
Living in Quuens , NY , increased security has been the norm since the tragic events of 9/11. While at times intrusive and by no means a perfect system, when I think about the Times Square bomber and other close calls, a bit of a delay , a scan or pat down seems a small price to pay.
I do agree that all of us must continue to be alert for our freedoms not to be trampled, but in this case "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one"
It's pretty much an anonymous procedure, with the body scan itself read in a separate room by people interested (pretty much I assume) in locating weapons, explosives, etc. How they choose to view my naked form is on them. What is on me is my willingness to allow this for the safety of alll on my flight.
I do however, think it's pretty silly to make the pilots go through this. If they so desired, they already have the most powerful weapon right in the palms of their hands,
If you are not doing anything illegal, then you should have no problem leaving your windows wide open at all times. Privacy is less urgent than even the most minute risk to safety.
HEHEHHEHEHEHE!!!! SO VERY TRUE. This IS what it seems like
:eek:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSQTz1bccL4
<object width="480" height="385">
<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/z7AWw7t5zj0?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></object>
"ohh, yeah... right there. that's so good. how about let's go out for a smoke after this?"
Bizarre or conspicuously defiant behavior is just not rewarded in this life except in the entertainment industry. Why government should be held to a higher standard of putting up with uncooperative behavior eludes me.
The people at TSA are just doing their job and they're doing it far better than their counterparts in private industry before them did.
You Aussies are the friendliest people in the world, so it really doesn't matter if you can't quite wrap your minds around our little problems!
ok
It's a good thing we have such wonderful airline security in this country so that perhaps someday I can visit Australia myself. It would take too long for me to take a ship way down under.
I have heard recent accounts of women getting fingered at the pat downs, and men having their clothes taken off. Then with the scans you're exposed to radiation. So it's pretty disrespectful either way. And by no means is it the most efficient way for airport security. I think America should stop being so prideful, and just take on Israel's example of security.
I agree. I believe Israel has a much more effective method of conducting security screenings.
Yeah, that Rosa Parks was just a whiny drama queen, wasn't she?
What kind of an argument is that? "The people in Auschwitz-Birkenau are just doing their job, and they're doing it far better than their counterparts before them did in the Eastern shtetls."
If there is going to be this kind of screening, it needs to be done based on a profile of the terrorists they are looking for. Feeling up Grandma's junk makes less then no sense, nor does submitting a child to X-rays that have a cumulative effect over their lifetime. Pilots?!? Don't get me started on that one.
George Carlin summed it up more eloquently than anyone else:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hq8pd0fDNaA
(If you have to ask whether George Carlin is safe for work, you probably shouldn't watch it.)
The Stasi were just doing their job, the waterboarders in the US security apparatus are just doing their job, etc. The problem is that the job should not be done. Americans have turned into a bunch of insecure pussies. If someone has done nothing to warrant a full body search, one should not be subjected to one. I don't fault the workers in the TSA, I fault the federal government for bad policy.
They are certainly doing their job, but I would not say they are doing any better than largely the same people were doing it before they were brought into the newly-formed TSA.
I work in security. Part of my job is computer forensics, but that is only part of it. If you understand physics, you can easily sneak a decent-sized METAL knife onto an airplane at an airport. I've demonstrated this to the TSA at my local airport. I used a similarly sized but non-dangerous metal object instead, and I happened to know the TSA agent from church, so I didn't get arrested or anything.
It is mostly security theater. It is intended to make people THINK that things are going well and to make them THINK that they are safer.
What made us safer was the realization that hijacking is no longer "let them land and everyone will be safe" like it was in the 70s. Now that we know that hijackers may be intent on killing everyone on the plane, it won't work any more because 300+ passengers vs 4-5 terrorists... the passengers will beat the you-know-what out of the terrorists, who will be lucky if they live long enough to be put into prison.
The TSA, mostly, have no understanding of real security. They are doing their job to the best of their ability, but they are going about it entirely the wrong way.
China uses a security model similar to ours in the USA but they are much more efficient and effective. Israel uses a completely different model and they are amazingly effective. These new scanners are not going to help detect much of anything other than, perhaps, ceramic knives, and the ceramic knives will fail under the 300 passenger to 4-5 terrorist ratio as mentioned previously.
The new scanners exist primarily for other reasons - drugs and money. The TSA did not stop the shoe bomber - passengers did. The TSA did not stop the underwear bomber - passengers did. (Though I can't help but laugh when I think of this would-be terrorist roasting his own weenie in an airplane.)
These scanners will not help. Israeli airlines have the idea - proper pre-boarding security checks and in-flight, EVERYONE has a metal knife with their meal. Now you have 300 ARMED passengers.
As long as there are religions that condone the murder of "infidels" as a means of obtaining merit, there will be security problems. We can do our best to prevent them, but we must balance that with the consideration of what actually works.
It's pretty clear where the best gains in citizen safety are: either introduce gun restrictions/controls or ban American citizens from entering the US!!!
Ever see the 1927 film "Metropolis?"
It's on my todo list. The only copy I have is in German. I'll have to rustle up an English version sometime. It looks interesting though.
WELL, from a Buddhist perspective, then are you folks saying that TSA workers are in a job that precludes Right Livelihood?
You mean to say that TSA workers are doing a wrong thing?
Someone above even equated people just doing their job with keeping Rosa Parkses from taking their seats in the front of the bus (They even gave a link as if anybody wouldn't already know about her. Geesh!).
Each of us in our daily lives should think about what we do every day and challenge ourselves to do the right thing. I daresay TSA workers can do their work with clean consciences every day. There have always been people in policing and always will be. I, for one, have a lot of admiration for all the people working in the helping professions, and include people in policing roles among them. There are so many of them that are chiefly motivated to "Just Do the Right Thing!"
Comparing the Stasi and German concentration camp workers to the TSA workers is just ridiculous. TSA processes people to destinations the people themselves have chosen. To compare them to those who treated others as mere commodities in the concentration camps, etc., really goes beyond the pale. It would be much better to compare our nursing homes to such. And more profitable for our society, as well!
Well believe it or not, Nirvana but many people who don't live in the US aren't acquainted with our dirty laundry. As this forum has worldwide readership it is good to provide such background.
They are not in a "helping profession". As querist so eloquently put, they are bit players in security theatre. And they are infringing on our Fourth Amendment rights. Buddhism has little to say about the US Constitution. It isn't an issue of right livelihood. It is a matter of civil liberties.
False equivalence. I did not compare them to the Stasi. I said that just because someone is doing their job doesn't justify their behavior and used examples that show the absurd conclusion of such an approach. What they are doing is taking away our liberty and/or endangering us with radiation. If there is no reasonable ground for suspicion, then nobody should be subjected to strip searches or groping. They are just doing their job, but the job itself has overreached what any sane society will permit. You are far more likely to be shot on a street corner than die in an act of airplane terrorism. Are you comfortable with police stopping everyone at checkpoints on downtown streets for full body searches regardless of who they are?
I don't recall saying anything about justification coming from merely following orders, but if I ever did I will be the first to admit to sloppy thinking. To say that people are just doing their jobs and that people should try to be understanding and cooperative was never meant as a categorical imperative by anyone uttering those words. Of course, our consciences should always overrule illegal, immoral, and unsafe "orders." (As to laughing at the Rosa Parks link, I'll make no apologies on this American-themed thread. Really, it just doesn't have the right ring to me at all.)
As to the radiation problems, I think some agency independent of Homeland Security and TSA needs to make sure the public is protected from the dangers pointed out in the link Lincoln posted above. No scrupulous TSA agent would find it tenable sending people through these machines without further investigation of ways to deal with these problems responsibly.
This is not about your and my feelings about potential assaults on rights and personal dignity. It is about meeting threats that would burn the very fabric of our society —the very thing that upholds our said rights and dignity legally. The economic side of this “fabric,” made up of banking systems, airline and other transport systems, etc., is very vulnerable to shocks that would cripple it for periods of time sufficient to create lasting hardships and weaknesses. It is therefore incumbent on the government to address the terrorist threat in ways reached by consensus or legislation. The airport threats are just the tip of the iceberg, unfortunately. Tomorrow cyberspace will probably be the biggest field of engagement and I imagine we'll have to do some kow-towing then. If people now think that the government is depriving us of our rights, I'd pity them 40 years from now when we'll no doubt have to submit our computers to random inspection by the authorities for reasons of "Homeland Security."
I think the terrorists are analogous to pathogens. As a few virulent viruses or bacteria can infect the body and cause systems to fail, so successful terrorist plots can target key areas that are susceptible to being damaged by disruptions in service. Especially as ours is a service-oriented economy we are especially in danger of any panic that might follow a successful attack. Also, I think the policy of screening everyone at the airports is analogous to the healthcare Universal Precautions protocol, in which everyone’s body fluids are treated as if they were known to carry pathogens.
Sorry, but TSA officials do act in a policing capacity and lay themselves open to abuse, risk of being killed, continuous radiation exposure, and more. They work with the intent of helping people safely get to their destinations. They are indeed members of the helping profession.
The problem is, however, that these measures do nothing to keep us any safer, any more secure. Indeed they don't even seem to be particularly effective in doing what they're suppose to do. I don't know how many stories I've heard of people being able to get weapons or other banned items through airport security.
Oh my god.
I'm feeling sick to stomach. I don't know whether to cry or throw up. That little boy. That defenseless little boy. How could they? How could they do that to a child? In front of everyone. My god.
Okay now I'm just mad. Those 'security' people have clearly lost their minds. No sane person, no person in their right mind, would ever do that to a little child. These people are either sick, criminal, or very, very stupid.
A soldier in the American army has the right to refuse an order if he/she deems it unlawful. I wonder how many American soldiers would refuse to strip an American child of his shirt and pat him down in full view of dozens of people for no clear reason if they were ordered to do so....
I haven't flown in years. Is this really what's going on??!!?? I mean, I skimmed a few headlines about it recently but didn't think much of it. Is this really happening? It's so wrong on so many levels it boggles my mind that the American people would let something like this go on. Thank goodness for those who are protesting this idiocy.
It's either submit to deadly radiation exposure or have a total stranger touch you all over your body?? Can you imagine the trauma this must be causing for rape survivors? Can you imagine?
Wow!
What an incredible post, querist. It gave me chills.
This place never ceases to amaze me with the caliber of intelligence I find here. Amazing posts everyone. Now when I go back to read all those news stories I so stupidly glossed over I'll have a bit of perspective to bring to them. Thank you so much.
Nirvana,
I really loved your perspective on this whole thing. It speaks volumes to the great Southern Gentleman that you are. You sound like the best of my fellow compatriots. (I always suspected the South had more in common with Canada than one would think....). I may not agree with that perspective but I love that you think that way. I know some of the others will probably disagree with me but they don't know you like I do. You're the feistiest pacifist I've ever met.
However, if it's a Right, then it shouldn't be able to be taken away... Yes?
I've been watching the US go down this road and becoming more and more appalled since 9/11... Let us all just become obedient workers that bend to our government's will and forget any sort of "Rights" that we have. Because if only ONE right can be taken away, then ALL of them can... And, the way things are going; soon we will have all of them taken away in the name of "security".
Give me my tracking chip, give me my number, give me my barcode, and give me my expected working life and appropriate living situation based upon my intelligence, genetic makeup, and obedience to the government... Give me the faith that my government will take care of me, give me the ignorance to blindly accept all of my circumstances, give me the fear to not want to challenge the government, and take away my drive to become anything more than what I am deemed "appropriate" in the eyes of the government so that I may live my entire life working. And give me the ability to be content in being at the mercy of my government much as a 5 year old is when it comes to living with their parents/guardians.
Give me a frontal lobotomy so that I may live in this situation contently until I pass away...
If the success of the Tea Party is any indication, that would be redundant for many Americans. Evangelical Christianity and Faux News do quite well enough on their own.
The people at TSA doing their jobs in good conscience with no intent to hurt others was my meaning, as I later clarified it. I really don’t understand your contentious posturing here, especially in light of your signature. Now, the fact that you disagree is quite beside the point here. Don’t say that my clarification, which does not contradict my earlier statement, is an unacceptable emendation.
I respectfully disagree with your statement if intended as a blanket statement covering all TSA employees. I have travelled a lot in the last six months and have experienced only professionalism and caring. However, I have not travelled extensively, so I have not encountered TSA personnel ill-trained for professionally handling the types of people and problems passing through their gates.
***Clear intent to hurt? Inability to do something in good conscience when there’s always the possibility that someone might fool you or even make a fool of you? *** See last paragraph.
You and I seem to inhabit completely different universes, fivebells. I wonder why we even bother conversing, but hey, maybe we can find some common ground?
It is a good thing that these matters are being aired to bring these concerns to the attention of the American public. I have no doubt that these matters will be rectified as people address the government for redress of wrongs. Good judgement and training are essential things for TSA employees to be armed with. It is unfortunate that in many cases TSA falls short, and I hope that further study of the particulars will bring about better methods of handling people while assuring them of full dignity. The OP linked to a johnnyedge blog about a TSA encounter at SAN, and I felt the passenger in the videos was a really contentious fellow who was causing needless delays. That’s how I felt. That’s how I reacted. There are always those who are last-minute comers who will miss their flights if others are inconsiderately impeding the process. It’s not just a simple process of everyday goings-ons. As in banking, investments are made and the investors have certain rules and penalties for being “in the system.” People know beforehand what is entailed and if they don’t agree to the terms they need not take advantage of the system.
The agents I have encountered seem to have these qualities. I’ve been through x-ray scanners and had to be examined more thoroughly due to clothing issues, and I’ve found the TSA employees to be very rational and concerned about my dignity. However, if I did feel that my civil rights were being compromised I would not choose to disrupt the flow then and there to assert MY way over the right-of-way of others.
Hey, we don't need to have a meeting of minds in this matter. And it's OK that each party thinks the other to be ridiculous, too. However I am worried when people imply that the conscience or one's intentions are of little or no worth when other things may intervene and cancel out all efforts made to bring about a good outcome. That stance, if seriously believed, would make any ethic impossible.
I don't understand this paragraph. These two sentences seem to make contradictory assertions about the extent of you experience.
Unfortunately, that's not happening (article about the total lack of data collected on TSA searches, and the apparent total lack of formal procedures. Follow-up article by the same author [a former assistant police chief.)
It's an interesting parallel you've to draw. It suggests that you don't understand the most serious threat to US sovereignty at the moment (nothing to do with underpants bombers, by the way), or the most comprehensive fleecing in US history.
Be that as it may, I am Australian, and my Mum is dying of cancer. I have to get back there. When did I agree to these terms? Do you suggest I swim?
Whether the TSA employees are concerned about your dignity is largely irrelevant to whether this is a necessary, legitimate imposition on people. Prison officers are instructed to demonstrate a concern for prisoners' dignity during body cavity searches too, but that doesn't make them a sensible tool for airline security.
Yep, it's fine by me, too.
This looks like a straw man or a non sequitur. What specific implications are you referring to?
Also, there will always be people who have no sense and areas where more training, education, and understanding are needed. Blanket statements just don't help the cause of understanding the big picture.
I said:
However I am worried when people imply that the conscience or one's intentions are of little or no worth when other things may intervene and cancel out all efforts made to bring about a good outcome. That stance, if seriously believed, would make any ethic impossible. I was referring to this nonsequitur:
Whether any of these measures are effective enough or even absolutely necessary is not my mission to decide. The protocols laid down by the lawful government may indeed need a lot of fine-tuning. I am confident the government is highly motivated to address these issues and even moreso as the citizenry brings these matters to its attention and demands better.
But I quite strongly agree with this:
I know, I know, "the path to hell is paved with good intentions"...true. But it's still a salient fact that people may do wrong or evil (as determined by history or other sources, obviously) without realizing it or intending to. Unless there is strong evidence not to, I think we should 'assume good faith' in the actions of others. They may be wrong, but not necessarily willfully malicious (and therefore, deserving of harsh treatment). Intention is important.
This is probably the fundamental difference in our woldviews. I can't understand how anyone who's lived through the last decade of US foreign, economic and security policy could possibly have such a sanguine view of government motives. During the Clinton administration (when I moved over here) I shared your faith in the government's benign intentions, but I've since been disillusioned.) The Obama administration in particular has brought me to despair for the fortunes of the US. I thought 2001-2008 might just have been an aberration, with Bush in power, but Obama seems almost as intent on keeping us frightened and keeping Wall Street happy.
After the WMD debacle, the TARP, and a bunch of other predictable, grave screw-ups which I would be happy to rant about at great length, I lost faith that the people in power know better than I do and started thinking for myself. You ought to try it. For instance, it's worth considering how effective the current airport security measures would be against someone prepared to smuggle explosives in their rectum, as Goldberg suggests in the article I linked to. If you conclude, as I have, that they would have no effect whatsoever, then you have to wonder what the point of back-scatter scans, pat-downs, and even baggage scans are. Frankly, to say that thinking about such things is not your "mission" looks like willful ignorance.
Just please don't tell me this matter overrides all other ethical matters.
You seem very keen on this issue and I admire that. However, moderate views accomplish more open ground for discovering paths of effective communication than do extreme views. Thus have I observed.
That's only true when you are moderating reasonable points of view. In this case, the policy is ridiculous in the extreme. It doesn't accomplish its stated objective and is a complete contravention of the Fourth Amendment. Now you may prefer to smile, nod and capitulate but don't pretend that you are being the reasonable one. That for example is what has castrated the Fourth Estate, who operate by the principle that two opposing viewpoints always have to be presented with equal weight rather than calling out lies and stupidity when they are presented.
Aside from some needed travel to Texas this holiday season, I won't visit again. I am seriously considering renouncing my US passport. The US use to inspire people. Now it is a laughing stock around the world. The way back to relevance starts with realizing that the current government is on the side of the plutocrats, not the average citizen.
My reading is that the laws, applying to all traffickers through the aeroports, do constitute such lawful warrants and premisses, and that the Fourth Amendment is in no way being violated.
Whether the protocols established by law accomplish their rather impossibly challenging objectives or not is quite beside the point. Those conducting such searches are nevertheless acting under an ethic which makes logical sense to them. They just happen (hopefully) to be of a different opinion and see what they're doing as making a difference. If they agreed with you, I'd hope they'd find another job.
Searching everybody including pilots the way they are is silly. How many incidents of terrorism would have been prevented by these new scanners? At most two in the past few years? So they are willing to irradiate millions upon millions of people in order to stop them at the gate? The money that they are spending on this could be better spent on actual intelligence gathering and interdiction.
If all airline passengers are to be screened, these searches are not unreasonable, as they are part of an established protocol, applied to all under established law. The probable cause clause was inserted in the Constitution to protect the people from the general warrants that the British used to search people on no particular grounds, with a view to penalize them to the full extent of the law if anything was found. The fact that we Americans have a written Bill of Rights to protect us from such flagrant abuses should not be contorted to the extent it would undermine the very well-being of our society. Some common sense is called for.
There is also no precedent for finding probable cause to detain children in classrooms for their instruction, either, or to draft the youth into the armed forces in time of war*, but these things are done and have been done without much being made of fourth amendment rights. People, in these two instances, are detained in their persons for substantial periods of time without any real adjudication of due process or of the probable cause clause of the fourth amendment. The purport of the fourth amendment is to help protect people from criminal prosecution, not really so much as to inculcate the idea of the ¿right above all other rights: ¿Privacy? Though privacy is a penumbra right in the fourth amendment, it nevertheless is very weak, as Roe V. Wade's legacy proves. But privacy is a whole other issue...
The mere desire to fly does not constitute probable cause that someone is going to commit an act of terrorism. True enough, but probable cause is a non-issue here, really —as everyone is being screened. Perhaps if only certain people were chosen to be screened the probable cause question might come into play.
And, indeed, how can anyone know of the full efficacy of these current protocols, anyhow? The randomness of the procedures in place is at least certain to stymie some low-tech trouble-makers who would like to make waves.
This is an ethical issue, really, and not at all a constitutional one, to my mind. Ethics concerns itself at root with doing the right thing and avoiding wrong actions. Therefore, I support the TSA workers who are in good conscience doing their job because they believe their job both needs to be done and is helping to prevent harm to others. On the other hand, those burnt-out workers (or whatever their problems are) who see the job as some sort of authority- or power-grab are not doing the right thing and they know it.
Intent here is nine-tenths of the equation. Furthermore, working positively to fix substandard and improper links in the chain will best bring about better outcomes.
_______________________
* Actually, in the case of a war that our side was hopelessly losing, one could argue that the detention of draftees was also unreasonable. Also, in the case of a hopelessly incorrigible child who just refused any instruction, one could also argue thus.:rolleyes: