A Philosopher's Blog

Philosophical Essays on Many Subjects

Transportation Security Administration

The Security Show

by 45 Comments

English: A TSA officer screens a piece of luggage.
English: A TSA officer screens a piece of luggage. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I recently flew home to Maine for my vacation, thus giving me my yearly exposure to the security procedures designed to save us from terror.

While I do not travel much, I do have the security process down. I put my watch and belt into my carry on (because, you know, belts presumably do bad things to the security hardware or out of concern that a passenger might hang himself out of frustration). I made sure that I had dark socks, because of the need to walk along the floor without shoes. Because, of course, some fool tried to put a bomb in his shoes one time. In a weird concession to age, people who are old enough can keep their shoes and light jackets on. I guess the logic is that people too old to work an iPad would not know how to bomb their shoes.

My ID was ready for the deep screening it goes through and, of course, as anyone knows, no terrorist would have a valid ID. I also had my laptop out because that presumably makes a big difference. My liquids (well, those outside of my body) were safely in the size limit and in the plastic bag. That way the screeners could glance at the bag and see that the containers were not labeled “high explosive” or “nitroglycerin.”

After that, I got my first ride in the full body scanner. It was rather like the scenes in the Fifth Element when the police make people stand and put their hands and feet on the yellow circles. Interestingly, the massively expensive scanner was baffled by my shorts-I had to be patted down anyway because the machine could not properly scan my pockets. As might be imagined, I was impressed to see my tax dollars being funneled to the corporation that makes these super expensive machines that can be apparently be defeated by a pair of $30 cargo shorts.

While they claim that the images don’t show any detail, I could see that the ladies (and some guys) gathered around the screen when I was going through. Yes, I have been working out ladies…and gentlemen.

After my stuff had been irradiated, I then put on my shoes, belt, watch and packed up my stuff so I could go and wait for my flight.

The flight back was basically the same, with one addition. While waiting, I saw some TSA folks roll up with their mobile testing stations. They waited around for about forty minutes until people were boarding and, for some reason, they pull people out of line as they were about the get on the plane rather than screening people while we are all waiting around. Presumably this way is more annoying and inconvenient. This is consistent with my hypothesis that much of the security procedures are the result of drunken wagers between government officials about how much bullshit Americans will put up with as long as they say “security” and “terror” enough.

As I was about to board, someone cut ahead of me and (of course) the TSA picked me for the special attention. As I watched people boarding ahead of me with their giant sized “carry-on” luggage I figured I’d have to check my properly sized carry on thanks to the TSA and the folks who think that anything they can carry (or wheel) counts as a carry on.

They explained the process to me and then rooted through my possessions looking for stuff I might have smuggled in between the time I was scanned and arrived at the gate. Interestingly, they were unarmed-so I am not sure what they would do if they found a real terrorist. Before I got the full body pat down I had the following conversation:

TSA Guy:”Do you have any sensitive areas?”
Me: “Just the usual ones.”

Then I got the full pat down, which was as degrading and as violating of my privacy and personal space as one would imagine. I do have sympathy for the TSA folks, of course. Just imagine spending your day caressing man-boobs and chubby thighs and you will probably feel for them, too.  Fortunately, I work out regularly, so the agent got to run his hands over some grade A man flesh. Or maybe grade A-, after all I am pushing towards 50 and I had been eating lobster, bacon and steak all week. Okay,so maybe B+. After determining that I did not have any items that might be used by a philosopher professor to destroy or seize the plane that was taking me to Atlanta, I was allowed to board and jam my carry on under the seat, thus ending that episode of security theater.

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

The “What If?” Gambit

by 18 Comments

A Delta Airlines Airbus A330-323E landing on r...
Image via Wikipedia

When I discuss various issues relating to safety and security, I generally take the view that we should have the minimum security needed to provide an effective defense. I also take into account the impact of such measures on rights and liberties while also giving positive and negative consequences their just due. This approach, obviously enough, means that my position on specific security/safety measures can be argued against on these various grounds.

Since I am against the use of full body scans and pat downs (at least as they are currently implemented), one way to argue against me is to consider the dire consequences of the dreaded “what if” scenario. “What if”, says the concerned person, “the scans are stopped and a terrorist takes out a plane with an underwear bomb that the scanners would have stopped?” Put in argument form, the idea is that the scanners and pat downs should be used because they have a chance of stopping such an attack. The added safety presumably overrides concerns about privacy rights, government intrusiveness, and potential harms to passengers (such as being humiliated in various ways).

On the face of it, “what if” scenarios are a legitimate consideration when it comes to security and safety. So, for example, when considering whether deep water drilling should be allowed or not, we should consider what would happen if another well failed. As another example, when deciding whether to lock my office door or not, I should consider what would happen if a dishonest person walked by and saw my computer and printer behind an unlocked door.

While “what if” scenarios are worth considering, merely presenting a dire possible consequence does not automatically justify a practice. After all, the likelihood of the dire consequence needs to be considered as does the likely effectiveness of the method and the cost it imposes.

Naturally enough, the assessment needs to done on the basis of a consistently applied principle or set of principles. Naturally, the principle of relevant difference can be used to justify differences-but this requires showing how the differences actually make a difference.

In the case of scans, they could possibly prevent an underwear bomb from being brought aboard. There is a chance that such an attack might be tried again. As such, there is a non-zero chance that the scanners could prevent harm being done. However, the odds of such an attempt are most likely extremely low. After all, there has been only one attempt.

The body scans and pat downs clearly infringe on basic privacy rights such as the right/liberty not to be touched and the right/liberty not to have people see one naked. While this rights can be justly violated or set aside, this requires proper justification. There is also the fact that there have been some rather unpleasant incidents (such as the urine bag incident and images being saved from the scans) that indicate that these methods are not without their costs. And, of course, there is the actual cost of the machines used in scanning.

Weighing the harms and benefits seems to lead to the conclusion that the scanners and pat downs are not justified.

However, the “what if” gambit can still be played. “What if the scans stop and a plane gets blown up! What would you say then, Dr. cost-benefit analysis?”

What I would say is, of course, that such an incident would be horrible. However, I must wonder what sort of principle the person making the “what if” gambit is using. If the principle is that we can violate rights and expend $170 million+ to provide some possible security/safety against a specific sort of very unlikely occurrence, then I would hold the person to applying the principle consistently.

After all, there are plenty of likely threats and dangers out there that could be reduced by infringing people’s rights or spending $170 million. For example, the right to drive cars could be taken away in the interest of safety (“What if we didn’t ban cars and someone got run over! What would you say then?”). People would then have to walk or bike (or use other means) which would also make them healthier. Many people die each year from traffic incidents and even more die from poor health. This would address both threats. Also, the economy could be boosted by selling bikes, skates, running gear and other such things. Redoing the infrastructure and creating more public transport would also create jobs.

As another example, we know that oil wells can blow up, kill people and create environmental problems ( “What if an oil well blows up, kills people and pollutes the sea! What would you say then?”).   If we are justified in using scanners to try to prevent an underwear bomb attack, then we would seem to be far more justified in banning oil wells and replacing them with alternative energy sources.

As a third example, consider guns. Sure, people have a right to keep and bear arms. However, look at all the gun deaths. “What if someone took a gun and killed some people! What would you say then?” Since no one has been killed by an underwear bomb and lots of people have been killed by guns, if we can infringe on rights to protect people from the incredibly low possibility of an underwear bomb, then we surely can infringe on rights to protect people from guns.

As a final example, we could keep people safer by putting cameras everywhere and on everyone.  “What if someone committed a crime that could have been prevented by cameras! What would you say then?” While this would violate the right to privacy, if security trumps privacy then this would seem to be fine.

Naturally, I am willing to tolerate oil wells (for now), I am willing to tolerate cars, I like guns, I’m against body scans, and I’m against living in a panopticon. However, this is because I contend that it is acceptable to tolerate a degree of risk in order to maintain rights.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Profiling

by 47 Comments

X-ray machines and metal detectors are used to...
Image via Wikipedia

Currently, the United States does not use profiling in regards to airport security. True, there is a no fly list-a list that has included people who are obviously not terrorists (like American children and a well known CNN journalist) and has generally failed as  method of providing security.

It has been claimed that profiling is not used in the United States because of political correctness. While that might be true, some reasonable arguments can be given against profiling.

One argument is that profiling could be misused in order to target people for harassment on the basis of their ethnicity, religion, nationality and so on.  For example, suppose that Arabs were flagged as higher risk. This would allow security agents (like TSA folks) who do not like Arabs to harass them under the cover of these profiles (“I didn’t pull Abdul out for a special search because I hate Arabs, I did it because he fits the profile”).  This is, of course, the argument used against racial profiling by the police: it results in certain people being targeted more and also provides a cover for harassment.

This is a legitimate concern and is supported by the history of racial profiling in the United States.

Another argument is that  profiling is inherently unfair. After all, such profiles treat a person as a suspect based on factors such as ethnicity and religion rather than on the person’s actual actions. To, for example, pull all darker skinned people out of line for special screening because they have dark skin and let white folks go on through normally would be unfair. While profiling might result in increased security, it is no more justified than allowing the police to pull people over for DWB (Driving While Black).

While these arguments are well worth considering, there are also arguments in support of profiling.

In theory, it does seem possible for profiling to be an effective means of determining threats. After all, terrorists (and other threats) do not arise out of nothing. There are causal factors and other factors that would seem to be connected to such people. Also, there are factors that would tend to indicate that a person is not likely to be a terrorist or threat. To use an obvious example, an FBI agent travelling with her infant son is probably not going to try to take the plane down. In contrast, a young man from Saudi Arabia who is flying in from Yemen who spent a few years in Pakistan is more likely to pose a threat.

The profiling I will be arguing for is not just any sort of profiling. Rather, it is profiling based on proper research and statistical models. It also needs to be subject to rigorous assessment. I do consider the possibility that proper profiling might be beyond the capacity of today’s behavioral sciences and thus that at this time profiling might not be accurate enough to be justified as a security tool.

One argument in favor of profiling is that it enables a more effective use of resources. Rather than randomly pulling people out of line, people who are more likely to be threats can be subject to more attention. This would increase the likelihood that such threats would be caught. To use an analogy, rather than having the police just pull people over at random to check for drunk driving, it makes more sense to look for indicators of drunk driving, such as swerving about.

A second argument in favor of profiling is that it reduces the violation of rights and liberties. Under the current system, everyone is treated as a likely terrorist and subject to body scans or pat downs. With profiling, people who are more likely to be threats can be subjected to the more invasive means of checking.

It might be argued that singling people out would violate their rights. However, it can be countered that the current system is a greater violation. The current system is to treat everyone from the toddler to the grandpa as an equal threat. As such, if singling people out would be a violation, then it would seem that targeting everyone would be an even greater violation. To use an analogy, having the police randomly pull over any driver seems like a greater violation of rights than having the police pull over people who are most likely to be driving drunk.

Naturally, it could be argued that it is more unfair to single people out based on their being more likely to be a threat. After all, they are being treated differently than other people even though they might have actually done nothing to warrant such suspicion-that is, they meet the profile but are not actually a threat.

So, it seems to be a matter of whether it is better to treat everyone as an equal threat or to consider some people as greater threats based on profiling.

As noted above, there is also the open question about the effectiveness of specific profiling methods. It might be the case that the behavioral sciences are not up to the challenge of creating an effective system. It might also be the case that even an effective profile method might be misused enough or employed poorly enough to make it unjust or useless.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Principle of Security

by 26 Comments

Screening Checkpoint at Boston Logan Internati...
Image via Wikipedia

While I am sometimes accused of being “soft on terror” because of my views of the war on terror (or whatever it is called now) in general and airport security in particular, I consider my approach to be a rational one. Since I am often cast as an “intellectual”, I feel somewhat obligated to do the intellectual thing and present a principle rather than just taking a view based on how I feel about one thing and then holding an inconsistent view on a similar thing just because I happen to feel differently about that.

My general principle for security is that a security method should be assessed based on the effectiveness of the method, the probability of the threat the method is supposed to counter and the degree to which it violates or infringes on legitimate rights/liberties, the relevant consequences, and the cost of the method. As such, this is a cost benefit analysis. If a method counters a likely threat effectively and does so without a disproportionate violation of rights/liberties and cost, then the method would seem to be acceptable. Otherwise, there would be reasonable grounds to reject the method.

Obviously, I do not have an exact formula and specific methods can be subject to reasonable debate. For example, I think that the full body scans could be effective, that the threat they counter is very unlikely, that the method violates privacy rights too much, and the scanners are too expensive. As such, I am against the full body scanners. However, all these points can be argued.

As another example, I am opposed to the employment of 3,000 (or so) “behavior detection officers.” While I suppose that it is good that these folks are employed, they seem to be rather ineffective: of the 266,000 referrals made since 2006, only 0.7% have even led to arrests. Hardly a high success rate for the cost. Given that “behavior detection” is, at best, an infant science, this is hardly surprising. As such, my view is that this is not a wise use of limited resources. Naturally, this is subject to debate as well.

One thing I have found rather interesting about security is that many people seem to operate on at least two standards: one is for things like the war on terror and the other is for almost everything else.

For example, someone who might balk at a law that prevents parents from smoking in the car with their kids (thus putting their kids at risk for various serious health problems) might think that full body scans and pat downs are acceptable because they help keep use safe from a threat (however incredibly unlikely the threat might be). This, however, seems inconsistent. After all, if the state has the right to violate rights to counter threats, then this right would seem to apply to both situations.

As another example, someone who is opposed to the state getting involved in health care (even though lack of health insurance leads to many deaths), restricting pollution (even though pollution is harmful), or regulating business  (even though many business have shown an unrelenting tendency to behave badly, such as acting in ways that wrecked the economy) might be fine with things like enhanced interrogation, secret prisons, and assassinations. This, however, seems inconsistent. After all, if the state is in the business of keeping us safe, then this should apply to keeping us safe from not only terrorists but also diseases, pollution, and dangerous business practices.

In my own case, I use my principle consistently to assess whether a security method is acceptable or not. So, for example, I assess state regulation of business based on the efficiency of the method, the likelihood of harm, the possible violation of rights/liberties and the cost. In the light of the catastrophic damage done to the economy that can be causally linked to business practices, it seems reasonable to impose regulations on such behavior. Letting business regulate itself in the hopes that they will act responsibly or be “corrected” by market forces is on par with removing all airport security and hoping that the terrorists will self-regulate or that the invisible hand will sort things out. The fact of the matter is that bad behavior generally requires an active counter.

Of course, the counter has to be weighed against the rights and liberties it infringes upon. So, for example, business folks do have rights and liberties that should be taken into account. Also, there can be relevant consequences in regards to limiting business too much. As some folks argue, business folks need a degree of freedom in order to make profits and keep the economy going. Likewise, the way people who travel by air can be treated should be limited by their legitimate rights.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Terrorists are Winning

by 54 Comments

Number of terrorist incidents for 2009 (Januar...
Image via Wikipedia

One post 9/11 mantra is “do this or the terrorists win.” This has been used and is still being used to justify all sorts of things ranging from enhanced interrogation techniques to full body scans. While we obviously do not want to let the terrorists win, we need to be critical about whether something actually helps keep the terrorists from winning or not. We also need to critically consider what counts as a win for the terrorists.

For the most part, people tend to focus on the obvious terrorist victory condition: successfully killing people. However, while this is a terrorist goal, it is also primarily a means to a more fundamental end. This end, as their name implies, is the creation of terror. Naturally, terror is also a means to the ultimate end(s) of the terrorists. However, I will be focusing on terror in this discussion and leave the matter of ultimate ends to another time.

While the terrorists have not been very successful at killing Americans (we kill way more of each other in accidents and crimes), they seem to be doing quite well in creating terror. During the Bush years, American foreign policy was shaped by a terror of terrorists. This fear (and anger) led to practices that seemed to clearly violate key American principles and values (such as the right to trial, the right to privacy, and so on). While these practices were justified in terms of keeping America safe, we acted like a terrified people eager to trade liberties and treasure for security.

It might be replied that we were not acting out of fear, but that we acted courageously by invading two countries, by creating secret prisons, by tapping phones without warrants, and creating a massive homeland security apparatus to heroically spend billions of dollars.

The easy an obvious reply to this is to remind people of scare tactics and fear mongering employed to “justify” these things. Ironically, those who were supposed to fight the terrorists were actually helping them create terror by constantly employing these scare tactics and casting the terrorists as incredible threats. The terrorists, one might argue, could have hardly hoped for a better ally in making them appear significant, powerful and terrifying.

While we no longer see quite the same level of scare tactics that marked the Bush years, the terror continues. To use the most recent example, the body scans and body pats show that we are apparently still terrified (or at least our “leaders” are). Even children and grand parents are patted down. Of course, this is not the start of the humiliation, just the latest chapter. One of the most heartbreaking things I saw occurred when I was going through security a few years ago. I saw a very old man hobbling towards the security checkpoint, his leg wrapped in a brace. The TSA agents pulled him aside and made him take off his brace and then the other support under it. They were not particularly nice about it and tears started flowing from the old man’s eyes. I could hear him saying that he was a veteran and had been wounded in war (hence the brace). I started walking towards the old man, but a TSA agent stepped towards me, presumably ready to arrest me if I said anything about how they were treating the old veteran. That, it seems, was either an act motivated by cruelty or fear. After all, people who are not scared or mean do not treat people that way.

But, someone might say, terrorists might use kids or old people to carry bombs! Hence, we need to check everyone. After all, how would I feel if some kid or grandma took down a plane because of some misguided rules about not touching kids’ junk or taking images of grandma’s body?

First, saying that sort of thing seems to be a clear sign of being scared-the terrorists have some people so frightened at their alleged power and genius for destruction that they think that terrorists can get, for example, old American veterans to carry bombs or can load the children of middle America with bombs. The fact that we are so scared of even the most remote possibility of an attack (such as another underwear bomb) seems to be a sign of either stupidity or fear (or both).

Second, I do agree that people should not be exempt from security procedures. However, the process should be handled rationally and TSA should handle the checks better rather than humiliating, scaring and making people cry. We can have real security with dignity, but we need to change what we are doing now as well as the current attitude (as exemplified by Janet Napolitano, who, to borrow a phrase from the Tea Partiers, just doesn’t get it).  Hmm, perhaps the government is not motivated by fear-maybe they just want to degrade and humiliate us.

We cannot beat the terrorists by being terrified. Yes, we should have effective security measures. But these should not be based on fear rather than reason.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Protesting the Pat

by 6 Comments

Male model wearing racing briefs, 2003.
Ready for his pat down. Image via Wikipedia

Some people have proposed protesting the TSA body scans and pats by refusing the body scan and electing for the full body pat down in public view. Presumably the goals are to call attention to the humiliating nature of the procedures and to slow down travel, thus making people angry.

Like Thoreau and King, I do think that civil disobedience and its relatives are legitimate and often morally commendable means of protest. However, the protests should be calculated to win public support and focus the outrage of the public on the target of the protests rather than on the protesters.

As I write this, the protest is planned for the day before Thanksgiving-a rather busy travel day. While this will provide the protesters with a large audience, the members of this audience (their fellow passengers) will most likely be more concerned about getting to grandma’s house than with the injustice of the scans. I suspect that more people will be angered at the protesters slowing down the process than at the government for implementing such invasive and unwarranted procedures. However, I could be mistaken-perhaps there will be a groundswell of support for the protesters and this will be known as the Pre-Thanksgiving Miracle Protest of 2010.

This is a matter of legitimate concern. After all, a protester has an obligation to consider the impact of his/her protest on others. If this impact is morally unacceptable, then the protest should not take place. If it is, then the protest would be (obviously) acceptable. In the case of the travel protest, there is the legitimate concern that the protest might significantly slow down travel. At the very least, the TSA will probably need to put more people on pat down and this will mean fewer people to handle the other tasks. Also, as with any protest, there is the possibility that things might go wrong. Perhaps a tired and annoyed TSA agent will slip and give a fellow a full groin grope, leading to a punch to the face (which would not be unreasonable-touching another man’s junk without permission is a punchable offense) which would probably be followed by an exciting security lock down. Or perhaps an angry passenger will start something. Or maybe everything will go smoothly. In any case, the protesters need to consider what effect their actions will have on others.

I happened to be thinking about this while running and my running attire (shirtless and short shorts) gave me an idea for another type of protest: men going through security in Speedos and women going through in bikinis. I assume that TSA would still have to pat such almost naked people down-after all, bureaucracy is really big on mindlessly following rules.

Enhanced by Zemanta
%d bloggers like this: