[Via TPM, here is a TSA information video. This sort of education should be a main priority, including informing media centers, travel agencies and businesses that influence public opinion.]
The big picture should be kept in mind here; the fact that someone does not personally fly, rarely flies or even finds this of trivial concern does not end the issue. The matter can and should be addressed from various angles. Some will focus on one or the other and if this leads to more focus overall, all the better.
Some, particularly those who do travel a lot, find this a wrongful invasion of privacy. Any single invasion can be explained away. Even a warrantless invasion of one's home. If the police stops by your home and asks to come in to ask a few questions, one might say, "I would say 'sure,' since I have nothing to hide." But, invasions of privacy as with everything else is not a singular thing. This occurs to some people more when the issue at hand is (whatever that might be) concerns them the most. Then, as here, they care. See, e.g., Glenn Greenwald today on the "theater" of the whole thing, but also see here on concerns about unnecessary use of radiation in other contexts. "Reasonable expectoration of privacy" is going to on some level have a populist flavor, minority rights not always weighed equally.
The issue at hand isn't quite novel. Before many who are wary of their "junk" being touched were born, the Supreme Court upheld a detention at an airport to allow time for drugs to be excreted and/or to allow a rectal exam. Justice Stevens noted that this otherwise would be unjustified, but she was given an easy alternative -- an X-Ray. We have here a similar "alternative" (more graphic* but the patdown is not quite akin to an extended wait and rectal exam either). The dissent rejected this invasion of privacy to prevent the evil of the day, citing health concerns as well.
Drug profiling has been criticized in part because of its questionable efficiency. Rep. Rush Holt, a member of the "biomedical caucus" (obscure but probably more important to the general public than many of the hot button caucuses), raises this and other concerns here, including the dangers of repeated exposure (as would be the case for business travelers; FDL flags other possible sensitive groups here). Cited is the Israeli screening system, particularly since Holt often traveled there and experienced it first hand. The matter was briefly addressed on Keith recently but I received few specifics. There might be a reason why it is not used here. This underlines the need for a full and educated (and educational) discussion of the issues, including in media accounts. I was also pointed to this.
Efficiency should be a pragmatic concern of those who do not have as emotional of a response as some people (the same applies to other things, such as torture and cruel treatment). Not being an expert, I just raise it as a concern, particularly since societal opposition has to be taken into consideration. Sometimes, privacy and other good things has to be invaded. But, since they are important as well as essential rights under our system, it has to be done with special care. The same applies to the secrecy of the methods here. Yes, the TSA might rightly in various cases retain some secrecy. But, if handled badly, society (and members of Congress) won't trust them, and the net effect can be that it won't be allowed to do so even arguably when it should.
An alternative suggested is racial profiling. Of whom? Jose Padilla doesn't really look Muslim to me. If there is to be any profiling, it should be by action and other neutral criteria. Just you watch. Some Timothy McVeigh sort will try something. After all, if an doctor can be assassinated in a church, why not an airport or airplane? Rationality isn't the name of the game here. Some scenario can be imagined where some explosive device will be used that can threaten the well being of the passengers and plane. Again, I'm not an expert. ["Arlington" is and has various posts that are worth reading.] It's just put out there as something to consider as part of the mix.
Finally, in respect to the planned protest. I have mixed feelings. I don't really buy the hyperbole of some who deemed it "cruel" or the like. I can be convinced that it's misguided. I also sort of doubt THAT many people would actually go through with it; surely, not enough to shut down the airports or anything. If the only result is that there are some delays, it very well might be worth it. Protest is not some painless event. It is likely to result in some discomfort to ordinary people. It's hard to judge though until I see the effects of the actual protest.
---
* At first blush, I personally don't find the images as offensive as some people do. We are not talking about actual pictures of our nude bodies. "Sexual assault" is a bit much. And, the "don't touch my junk" business is a bit infantile. So is fear of "homosexual" TSA agents. Keith has been a tad overblown too.
But, yes, some intimacy is at issue, so some special care should be involved. A look at the FDL flier linked about suggests this is not just stick figure stuff; questions about protecting the release or storage of the data also have arisen (but see here -- this sort of thing has lots of nuances). Likewise, as to the patdowns, they are more intimate than the run of the mill sort of thing but as noted above, in other contexts, intimacy is violated too.
Ultimately, as Arlington notes, the whole privacy thing on some level boils down to personal opinion. And, Chris Hayes was right last night to have mixed feelings about the whole thing overall.
The big picture should be kept in mind here; the fact that someone does not personally fly, rarely flies or even finds this of trivial concern does not end the issue. The matter can and should be addressed from various angles. Some will focus on one or the other and if this leads to more focus overall, all the better.
Some, particularly those who do travel a lot, find this a wrongful invasion of privacy. Any single invasion can be explained away. Even a warrantless invasion of one's home. If the police stops by your home and asks to come in to ask a few questions, one might say, "I would say 'sure,' since I have nothing to hide." But, invasions of privacy as with everything else is not a singular thing. This occurs to some people more when the issue at hand is (whatever that might be) concerns them the most. Then, as here, they care. See, e.g., Glenn Greenwald today on the "theater" of the whole thing, but also see here on concerns about unnecessary use of radiation in other contexts. "Reasonable expectoration of privacy" is going to on some level have a populist flavor, minority rights not always weighed equally.
The issue at hand isn't quite novel. Before many who are wary of their "junk" being touched were born, the Supreme Court upheld a detention at an airport to allow time for drugs to be excreted and/or to allow a rectal exam. Justice Stevens noted that this otherwise would be unjustified, but she was given an easy alternative -- an X-Ray. We have here a similar "alternative" (more graphic* but the patdown is not quite akin to an extended wait and rectal exam either). The dissent rejected this invasion of privacy to prevent the evil of the day, citing health concerns as well.
Drug profiling has been criticized in part because of its questionable efficiency. Rep. Rush Holt, a member of the "biomedical caucus" (obscure but probably more important to the general public than many of the hot button caucuses), raises this and other concerns here, including the dangers of repeated exposure (as would be the case for business travelers; FDL flags other possible sensitive groups here). Cited is the Israeli screening system, particularly since Holt often traveled there and experienced it first hand. The matter was briefly addressed on Keith recently but I received few specifics. There might be a reason why it is not used here. This underlines the need for a full and educated (and educational) discussion of the issues, including in media accounts. I was also pointed to this.
Efficiency should be a pragmatic concern of those who do not have as emotional of a response as some people (the same applies to other things, such as torture and cruel treatment). Not being an expert, I just raise it as a concern, particularly since societal opposition has to be taken into consideration. Sometimes, privacy and other good things has to be invaded. But, since they are important as well as essential rights under our system, it has to be done with special care. The same applies to the secrecy of the methods here. Yes, the TSA might rightly in various cases retain some secrecy. But, if handled badly, society (and members of Congress) won't trust them, and the net effect can be that it won't be allowed to do so even arguably when it should.
An alternative suggested is racial profiling. Of whom? Jose Padilla doesn't really look Muslim to me. If there is to be any profiling, it should be by action and other neutral criteria. Just you watch. Some Timothy McVeigh sort will try something. After all, if an doctor can be assassinated in a church, why not an airport or airplane? Rationality isn't the name of the game here. Some scenario can be imagined where some explosive device will be used that can threaten the well being of the passengers and plane. Again, I'm not an expert. ["Arlington" is and has various posts that are worth reading.] It's just put out there as something to consider as part of the mix.
Finally, in respect to the planned protest. I have mixed feelings. I don't really buy the hyperbole of some who deemed it "cruel" or the like. I can be convinced that it's misguided. I also sort of doubt THAT many people would actually go through with it; surely, not enough to shut down the airports or anything. If the only result is that there are some delays, it very well might be worth it. Protest is not some painless event. It is likely to result in some discomfort to ordinary people. It's hard to judge though until I see the effects of the actual protest.
---
* At first blush, I personally don't find the images as offensive as some people do. We are not talking about actual pictures of our nude bodies. "Sexual assault" is a bit much. And, the "don't touch my junk" business is a bit infantile. So is fear of "homosexual" TSA agents. Keith has been a tad overblown too.
But, yes, some intimacy is at issue, so some special care should be involved. A look at the FDL flier linked about suggests this is not just stick figure stuff; questions about protecting the release or storage of the data also have arisen (but see here -- this sort of thing has lots of nuances). Likewise, as to the patdowns, they are more intimate than the run of the mill sort of thing but as noted above, in other contexts, intimacy is violated too.
Ultimately, as Arlington notes, the whole privacy thing on some level boils down to personal opinion. And, Chris Hayes was right last night to have mixed feelings about the whole thing overall.