The Trajectory Of The Restriction Of Privacy And Freedom
I tried to get people to care about the pointless "security" provided by the TSA, which I see, in part, as obedience training for the American public to be docile in the face of having their rights yanked from them.
Surprise, surprise, scanners are toddling off from the airport to other areas of American life.
Recently, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority announced a plan to begin deploying full-body scanners in the LA subway system.
Former congressman Bob Barr gets the danger of this to our civil liberties, explaining that the trajectory of surveillance always goes upward -- to more, not less:
The TSA has long advocated for the use of scanners, not only at commercial airports, but at other travel hubs as well; and its presence at the Los Angeles unveiling as a partner in the project was no surprise. Also of no real surprise, at least to those familiar with the world of privacy-invasive security systems, was the announcement that the technology for the subway scanners was being provided by the British company Thruvision.As has become the norm whenever the government hits the public with a new form of scan-based security, there were promises that the devices carry no risks to the individuals being scanned. Assurance also were made that the systems will not be overly intrusive. In some respects, such assurances come with a degree of truth. For example, because the devices to be installed rely on scanning waves emitted by the human body (as opposed to radiation emitted by the scanners currently in use at airports), they likely will not carry any risk to those passing through their field of scan. Also, at least as currently planned, the devices will not be deployed at chokepoints through which each subway passenger must pass, so lines probably would not be among the initial drawbacks.
However, anyone who follows the progression of government surveillance systems knows that the vector always travels in one direction - upward to more surveillance, not less. And, since the wavelength scanners unveiled in L.A. currently are capable only of revealing objects on the body of the person passing through the scan field, they would appear unable to pick up a mass hidden not on the individual's body but in a briefcase or backpack. It only makes sense, then, that the technology will be rapidly enhanced in order to detect other potentially lethal objects being carried by, and not on, individual persons.
Alex Wiggins heads the Los Angeles transit authority, and in his remarks at the August 14th demonstration, he made a not-very-credible stab at assuring the public that once the scanning system was in place, the government surveillors would have no interest if they detected a weapon incapable of inflicting "mass casualties." He explained that the scanners were "specifically" for the purpose of detecting such things as "explosive vests [and]. . . assault rifles." Los Angeles is a city that clearly is no friend to persons who carry concealed weapons, and for an official to state that if law enforcement detects a person carrying a handgun onto a subway they will take no action in response, borders on laughable.
The more diverse society is --> the less trust there is --> the more need there is for restricting privacy and freedom.
Snoopy at September 4, 2018 4:13 AM
The full quote is "We’re looking specifically for weapons that have the ability to cause a mass-casualty event,” Wiggins said. “We’re looking for explosive vests, we’re looking for assault rifles. We’re not necessarily looking for smaller weapons that don’t have the ability to inflict mass casualties."
How does the machine distinguish between and handgun and a rifle? How will it distinguish between an "assault rifle" and a rifle (say, between an AR-15 and a Mini-14 - stylistically different but essentially the same gun) Not to mention that a 17-shot handgun could inflict "mass" casualties.
The language being used to describe these machines indicates the people deploying them have no clue what they're doing. As Amy has put it before, it's "security theatre" - invasion of privacy for illusory security. Identify a threat, terrify people with it, and invade their privacy to "protect" them from it.
Conan the Grammarian at September 4, 2018 5:04 AM
Only terrorists need the 4th amendment.
(remember that the next time someone tells you what you "don't need")
I R A Darth Aggie at September 4, 2018 6:40 AM
"For example, because the devices to be installed rely on scanning waves emitted by the human body (as opposed to radiation emitted by the scanners currently in use at airports), they likely will not carry any risk to those passing through their field of scan."
Are we going to question this claim?
Radwaste at September 4, 2018 6:36 PM
I still don't see how requiring a strip search to ride a plane or enter a government building is in any way constitutional.
Perhaps that is why people are freaking out over Trump's court picks so much.
Ben at September 5, 2018 7:16 AM
Leave a comment