I just watched a news piece about complaints in America about over-invasive airport security. Here are some thoughts I bashed out - Feilidh.A topic which really fires me up is the surrendering of privacy and liberty for the gain of security.
The question is: Should the public forgo their rights to privacy and liberty in order to be more safe (allegedly)?
I try not to be alarmist when it comes to this issue because I do not consider Western Society to be an Orwellian or police state.
I do however think people sacrifice their liberties far too easily. I once argued with a middle aged workmate who saw no problem with putting security cameras in every corner of a city. "You've got nothing to worry about if you've got nothing to hide" - she said adamantly. I find this line of thinking extremely worrying.
One issue that arises in the security vs privacy debate is people's treatment at airport checkpoints.
I've travelled to airports around the world and been subject to most security protocols. I've had my brand new sunscreen confiscated (I was mega pissed) as I was leaving Auckland International and in Melbourne I had a snarly she-devil tell me in a very condescending tone to walk through the scanner again because I had my hands in my pocket.
But these are not really bad experiences. I've never had someone security officer pat down near my johnson or been subject to a 'random' bomb search.
Being at airports is one of the few times I feel like a caged animal. Entering into an airport means you submit to being scrutinised, cast under a suspicious gaze, photographed, scanned and ordered around. It sucks.
America - never a country to do things by halves has taken invasiveness to a whole new level. When going to a terminal in the USA you have the glorious options of either A: Having a full body scan where an attendant can see you naked (although the image is inverted) or B: Getting a full body pat down by the TSA in which the areas around your bust and groin are prodded (just in case you've got your underwear crammed full of grenades).
John Pistole, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) chief said while addressing the public's growing frustration with the procedures; that those unwilling to submit to screening would relinquish their right to fly.
Some people clearly don't mind being scanned, prodded etc because for them, the measures give them peace of mind. But how far would those people let security measures go before they felt personal boundaries were being crossed? A cavity search?
I understand that governments have to be seen to take security seriously but surely this is too far.
There is clearly some need to be vigilant against attacks on planes but do we let a few party crashers ruin parties world wide?
I think blanket bans of anything because of a few idiots are always unfair. It's penalising the majority for the actions of a few. Some people blow their faces off with fireworks on guyfawks. The result? Total ban on fireworks. Then no one gets fireworks anymore. That is bullshit.
One might argue that invasive security will help stop planes from being blown out of the sky. Let's be careful for sure but security measures need to be put into perspective.
The media can warp people's perception of the likelihood of any given event happening. If you bought into media hype surrounding shark attacks you would probably think at least hundreds of people were killed every year by sharks. The reality? Around five people die every year from shark attacks.
The same holds for terrorism. The risk is WAAAAYYYY overstated.
Here's an abridged exert from an article "Don't Be Terrorised" by Reason Magazine:
Michael Rothschild, a former business professor at the University of Wisconsin, worked out a couple of plausible scenarios for terrorist attacks in order to calculate the risk to the public. Even if terrorists were able to pull off one attack per year on the scale of the September 11th, that would mean your one-year risk would be one in 100,000 and your lifetime risk would be about one in 1300. In other words, your risk of dying in a plausible terrorist attack is much lower than your risk of dying in a car accident, by walking across the street, by drowning, in a fire, by falling, or by being murdered.
I think a fantastic quote that all those scared of terrorism should take note of is the following by Benjamin Franklin: "Those who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Safety and security are important, yes. But so is living and moving freely from place to place and not being treated as if you are already a criminal by your government.
Feedback is always welcome..
