![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
The explosion of concern about body scanners and pat-downs is leaving me with mixed emotions. I'm against them, of course, because I'm against security theater. They're guarding against a kind of threat (underwear bomb) that didn't work in the first place. We can't guarantee 100% safety of any kind, and we need to face that like adults and have a reasoned cost-benefit discussion. Even if we make air travel compeltely safe from terrorists, they'll just attack someplace else.
I went through one last month. It was a bit weird to think about, but then I shrugged it off. And I once had a fairly intrusive pat-down, which was mostly only embarrassing because it turned out to be the foil wrapper on a forgotten condom which set off the metal detector in the first place. But this isn't the kind of thing I can judge just on my own reactions. The descriptions of what the process feels like to sexual assault victims is what we need to be thinking about here. And the anecdotal evidence that the pat-downs are being used in a punitive way is pretty clear at this point. The idea that we have a governmental agency with a policy of committing minor sexual assaults in order to coerce people into using expensive (profitable for lobbyists!), privacy-intruding devices that serve little practical purpose is obscene. And the video of a little kid being screened... that was pretty horrible.
But the backlash also feels very fake in many ways. The health risks of the scanners are (predictably) being blown up far out of proportion. If you don't like ionizing radiation, you shouldn't be flying in the first place. And despite the very real mental trauma concerns, all the attention is being focused on self-righteous "don't touch my junk" guy. The crypto-homophobic side to all of it is very off-putting. Hardly the first time society has sent the message "sexual assault is pretty bad, we guess, unless it's male-on-male, then it's the worst thing ever omg", but still. Ew.
I'm also very uncomfortable with some of the suggested reactions, like wearing a kilt commando style or faking an orgasm. I don't think turning something that might be sexual assault into definite sexual assault in the other direction is morally defensible. That's all thi is, trying to guarantee that the agent is sexually uncomfortable or humiliated. Ugh. And, again, there is a lot of homophobic undertones here. "Ha, I'll make that guy touch *balls*, what could be worse than that?" I like the idea of mass opting out of the scanners, to just overwhelm them with numbers, but there can't be anything punitive about action taken. In the end, most of the agents are just poor schmucks with crappy jobs dealing with incredibly entitled people all day. Some (probably well above background rates, as with any position of power) are power-hungry jerks, but not all.
More fundamentally, if we're committing ourselves to the path of adding new security procedures against every possible threat, no matter what the cost or side-effects, we need to be very clear about where that leads. There has already been at least one unsuccessful suicide bombing attempt (well, the suicide part worked, anyway) with rectal explosives. The only way to screen for those would be full x-ray screening and cavity searches. I'd ask if we're prepared for that, but I sadly think we kind of are. Ten years ago, no, the idea would have been preposterous and Orwellian. But so would banning liquids, requiring shoes and belts be removed for the screening, strong-arming people into creepy nude pics and federal agents feeling up little kids.
I went through one last month. It was a bit weird to think about, but then I shrugged it off. And I once had a fairly intrusive pat-down, which was mostly only embarrassing because it turned out to be the foil wrapper on a forgotten condom which set off the metal detector in the first place. But this isn't the kind of thing I can judge just on my own reactions. The descriptions of what the process feels like to sexual assault victims is what we need to be thinking about here. And the anecdotal evidence that the pat-downs are being used in a punitive way is pretty clear at this point. The idea that we have a governmental agency with a policy of committing minor sexual assaults in order to coerce people into using expensive (profitable for lobbyists!), privacy-intruding devices that serve little practical purpose is obscene. And the video of a little kid being screened... that was pretty horrible.
But the backlash also feels very fake in many ways. The health risks of the scanners are (predictably) being blown up far out of proportion. If you don't like ionizing radiation, you shouldn't be flying in the first place. And despite the very real mental trauma concerns, all the attention is being focused on self-righteous "don't touch my junk" guy. The crypto-homophobic side to all of it is very off-putting. Hardly the first time society has sent the message "sexual assault is pretty bad, we guess, unless it's male-on-male, then it's the worst thing ever omg", but still. Ew.
I'm also very uncomfortable with some of the suggested reactions, like wearing a kilt commando style or faking an orgasm. I don't think turning something that might be sexual assault into definite sexual assault in the other direction is morally defensible. That's all thi is, trying to guarantee that the agent is sexually uncomfortable or humiliated. Ugh. And, again, there is a lot of homophobic undertones here. "Ha, I'll make that guy touch *balls*, what could be worse than that?" I like the idea of mass opting out of the scanners, to just overwhelm them with numbers, but there can't be anything punitive about action taken. In the end, most of the agents are just poor schmucks with crappy jobs dealing with incredibly entitled people all day. Some (probably well above background rates, as with any position of power) are power-hungry jerks, but not all.
More fundamentally, if we're committing ourselves to the path of adding new security procedures against every possible threat, no matter what the cost or side-effects, we need to be very clear about where that leads. There has already been at least one unsuccessful suicide bombing attempt (well, the suicide part worked, anyway) with rectal explosives. The only way to screen for those would be full x-ray screening and cavity searches. I'd ask if we're prepared for that, but I sadly think we kind of are. Ten years ago, no, the idea would have been preposterous and Orwellian. But so would banning liquids, requiring shoes and belts be removed for the screening, strong-arming people into creepy nude pics and federal agents feeling up little kids.
no subject
--When I have a medical scan done, the operator has been trained extensively (they generally have at least an associates degree as a scanning tech) and the machinery tested exhaustively to confirm its effect on the human body, not to mention regular maintenance testing, and lead aprons for anyone standing nearby. There are reason for recommendations that, f'rinstance, pregnant women should not get x-rays. (Anyone know what the TSA policy is on women who are or think they might be pregnant?)
--Medical personnel who might end up touching the girlparts have ALL been not only trained extensively--for years and years--but have also gone through FBI background checks before they could be hired into their jobs. TSA personnel? Not so much, unless criminal records are okay with the FBI.
--Taking naked pictures of anyone under the age of 18 is against the law. Period. (Try taking pictures of your own 3 year old in the bath and then getting them processed at a one-hour photo, and see how soon you end up talking to the police. Yes, this does happen.) Touching the private parts of anyone under a certain age (varies by state and often depends on who and how old you are) unless you are a doctor and even through clothes, is also against the law. Period. Unless it's the TSA, who thinks that anyone over the age of 8, or 12, or 13 (there's no firm age policy) should be eligible for the required-naked-picture-or-molestation security check. As a parent, I find this infuriating.
--If it's illegal for Joe-on-the-street to do it, then why the HELL should it be legal for someone in a uniform to do it? Let alone for the government to *require* me to let them do it? Let's not split hairs here; the "enhanced pat down" IS sexual assault... if it's done nonconsensually by anyone not wearing a TSA uniform. Since when is the presence of a uniform a determining factor in whether sexual assault is sexual assault?
--Janet Napolitano and the new head of the TSA supposedly had an "enhanced pat down" done to them prior to this being implemented. Really? Why do I get the feeling that if they went to an airport anonymously, the patdown they'd receive would be very different from the ones given to the heads of the TSA and DHS? For that matter, why haven't they tried doing exactly that to find out what all the furor is about?
no subject
You are mistaken, at least in the US.
no subject
I'm copying my own post from Aug 4 of this year (http://randomdreams.livejournal.com/473419.html):
"Remember how they said the machines were unable to actually record and store the images (http://tech.slashdot.org/story/08/04/21/0253209/JFK-LAX-To-Test-Millimeter-Wave-Scanners)?
Of course they lied about that.
Remember how they said well the machines CAN store and transmit images, but only when in test mode (http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/01/11/1950206/Airport-Scanners-Can-Store-and-Transmit-Images)?
Of course they lied about that, too (http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/08/04/1530224/Denials-Aside-Feds-Storing-Body-Scan-Images)">
So at this point they could propose saving kittens by handing out $100 bills to everyone, and I'd *still* oppose them just because they have a track record of being lying weasels.
no subject