(Note:The bulk of this post was written shortly after the underwear bombing, when the topic was on my mind. It is being posted sometime later, as I got amazingly busy.)
A lot of my posts are about me, and things happening with me. This is an exception, and, at the same time, not an exception. I've been doing a lot of thinking on this topic, but this topic is being nationally discussed at the moment. I should probably get to the topic itself. Airport security, terrorism, underwear, body scanners, privacy. Run all those together in your head, and the idea that comes out, that's what I'm talking about today.
To really do this right, we have to go back. I know, its a cliche, but we never will forget. I remember where I was on 9/11, as I'm sure we all do. The aftermath was filled with lots of fear, worry, and wanting some kind of response, something that would make us feel safe again. There were responses, and they filled that need, we felt a little safer. This feels like an appropriate time to bring up an old Ben Franklin quote. (Short aside. Is there another kind of Ben Franklin quote? They are all at least 200-something years old. And still, if I hadn't put that "old" in there, it would have felt odd.) "Any society that would give up a little liberty, to gain a little safety, would deserve neither, and lose both." Nice rhetoric there Mr. Franklin! Classic use of a chiasm. (Go look it up!) Living in the time and place I live in today, Mr. Franklin's point feels a little offhand, and not entirely true. One, how does a society come to earn deserving freedom, or security? Two, I think we are living in a time where giving up a little liberty has resulted in gaining some security.
The context for this topic being on my mind, in case you missed it, is the "Underwear Bomber", as he has come to be called, but his real name is
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. He attempted to blow up an airplane over Detroit, by fairly complicated means. As far as I understand, he had packets (condoms) filled with liquids, that if injected with the right reactant, would explode. The biggest hurdle to this plan actually working was getting the liquids on the plane, which means past security. Logically (illogically?) enough, he put these packets in his underwear, which worked. He got on the plane, attempted to detonate the explosives, and got caught. Bad, yes. When you start looking at the history behind this, that's when you get a picture of what a incompetent job was done that allowed Umar to get on the plane.
Umar's father, in what must have been a heartbreaking action for him, went to the U.S. embassy in Nigeria, and reported that his son had become radicalized, and was a possible danger to other people. Eventually this information got to the proper authorities, and Umar was actually going to be taken in for questioning by an FBI team that was waiting for him to land. Talk about the perfect example of "a day late and a dollar short"! I agree, a father's warning is not enough to arrest a man. There was more! Turns out the CIA had information that there was going to be an attack, perhaps involving a Nigerian. Reasonable doubt. Sounds like enough to get something going. Homeland Security also knew that there was an increased possibility for an attack over the holiday season. And yet, somehow, he got on the plane.
One final bit of background is the ongoing battle between security and innovative terrorists. There was the shoe bomber, and now shoes must be removed. The good guys keep upping the security, and then the bad guys get even more clever, and then the good guys find a way to thwart the latest innovation. Back and forth. Some argue this piecemeal approach is a waste of time, but I feel that attempting to anticipate the next bad idea is hard, and letting the terrorists spend the time, and get frustrated keeps us safer than hundreds of security precautions.
Now the more theoretical side of this problem. How do we stay safe? What are the costs we can encounter from attempting to stay safe?
One of the biggest problems we have seen over the course of the battle with terrorism is lack of communication between various agencies. The CIA has information, and they don't share it with the FBI until its too late. The FBI gets a tip, and it goes through the buracracy, and 3 months too late, Homeland Security gets that information. The instinctive reaction is to develop one super intelligence agency, that goes from gathering to acting on that action. The reason we don't have such an agency is to prevent a concentration of power. This make sense. What seems like a more reality based idea is developing better communication between agencies, so reliable information is shared while it is still relevant. The thing that stands in the way of better communication, which in theory would lead to increased security, is security. The clearance levels at various agencies are different, and some information can be shared with an ordinary analyst at the CIA, but would require a senior analyst at the FBI. There is also the problem of piecing together the puzzle. If one organization was infiltrated, the unfiltered sharing of information could easily result in the compromise of a source. Deducing who shared a particular wouldn't be too hard if you knew when it was shared, how, and where it originated, geographically.
Another idea is a heavier reliance on digital storage. As the hackers in China recently showed us, even the biggest entities, such as Google, are not invulnerable. The United States has a lot of enemies, even more than Google.
What is the solution? I'm really not sure there is one answer. Do we need a solution? Undoubtedly.
It is hard to put a price on safety. Is it worth 10 extra minutes per person? That doesn't seem like a lot, but considering the millions of people who travel a year, that is actually a large economic sacrifice. And when you weigh freedom against safety, it is even harder. Can't we have our freedom and security too?? Personally, I don't see the problem with my body being scanned. If we don't want to break the rules, why should we care about the rules? I understand the words of the argument about TSA workers seeing private body parts, but that could easily be blurred enough that weapons would still be visible, but genitalia not distinguishable. I do not understand what makes this thought so utterly indigestible to the general consciousness. The person will be in another room. This could be an interesting topic for a study. Offer the choice of someone seeing you naked, and no possible danger, or not being seen naked, and the possibility of serious harm, and perhaps even death. I know which one I would choose.
On an ideological level, I don't really see much else of a choice. Unless we respond to this newest innovation, this tactic will continue, and probably increase in efficacy as time progresses. I understand, there are other steps that can be taken. Great! Take those too! Its not like the free press is being shut down (heck, it is doing that itself), or the right to bear weapons is being taken away. If you don't want to be searched, and have your body scanned, then you can get from point A to point B in some manner besides flying on a commercial airlines. Submitting to a search is part of the conditions which must be fulfilled to fly, just like undergoing a physical is part of the conditions to go skydiving.
The "invasion" of privacy is a momentary glimpse, which would then probably be erased. No one is bugging your house, watching you 24/7, or barraging you with personal questions for no reason. Having my body seen by someone in another room is preferable to a lot of other invasions of privacy I can think of.
So, what do you guys think?
Also, speaking of my readers, I want to give a shout-out to Miki at the Monterey Bay Aquarium! Miki, you can comment too. I love to hear people are reading this. If you have been reading without tell me, please, let me know! It makes my day.
Have a great night!
Chris