RSS

Thu, Dec 2nd 2010, 21:38

Andrea Aquino, NYU, Bronze Contributor (23)

I completely disagree with this. I understand how the more overt security measures can be considered humiliating and unwanted especially by those who are undoubatable innocent. However, equality is important to emphasis here. We do not know, nor should we, assume certain individuals to automatically pose a threat. Yes, there may be some who are reported from past atrocities and connections to be an obvious threat. However, in our world today we cannot be naive enough to think that danger is out there and can be committed by those who we would nsturally least suspect. It is a sad thought, but I think when it directly concerns thousands of travelers safety every day it is a precaution that needs to be taken.

With that, I do not think our world should assume the worst in people. But protection in our world is important, it is always better to be careful. I think the media takes these "over zealous measures" and spins it in a way that may increase peoples fear and perception of threat. Instead, this same report could have focused on how these scanners, although considered invasive, are better than allowing some threat to go unnoticed. Isn't our safely, regardless of whatever the threst level may be, more important? Additionally, stricter security measures will deter an attack being carried out this way.

Focusing on a small proportion of travelers would cause as much of a public outrage as it has in the past. Those who have been unfairly targeted were not appreciative of the assumptions. We do live in America, where we preach equality. Although it is often not reflected in our policies, I do think that applying more detailed security checks to everyone is not something that should be so quickly objected.

Sun, Dec 5th 2010, 23:42

Basia A Bubel, NYU, Platinum Contributor (190)

I support equality and am for the most part against racial profiling but I do not think these new measures are necessary. I believe the point of introducing these new "security measures" is to try to find powder. The threat of a terrorist attack is very minimal and if they really do have a motive to attack- they will find a way. However giving up individual freedoms is very dangerous. We are always told that giving up some freedoms is necessary for our security and that our constitution is not a suicide pact. Human freedoms should never be given up even under so called "security" threats. Its very important not to buy into that rhetoric that we should give up certain freedoms for our security now and that the freedoms will be restored later after the threat is gone. That is a lie and we need to hold onto our freedoms dearly.

Sun, Dec 12th 2010, 22:23

E Jervis, New York University NYU MSGA, Silver Contributor (27)

I agree with the author of this article. As he states, “Instead of humiliating everyone, focus on the very small proportion of travelers who might present a threat.” This is exactly what the job of TSA workers should be. Focusing on everyone actually makes security less effective and makes all of us less safe. They should be concentrating on where the threats potentially are. That does not mean focusing simply on ethnicity, but on an individual’s behavior. As we know, a terrorist can be any race, ethnicity or age. But to search and grope an 80-year-old woman in a wheelchair is absolutely absurd.

On a somewhat related note- consider this from a Nov. 22, 2010 LA Times article written by Indian-American Lieutenant Sunil Dutta of the LAPD. He says that "true" racial profiling is "both illegal and immoral," He gives the example of searching for a Latino gang member after a crime was committed. It is useful and legitimate for police officers to look for “Latino males of a certain age who dress in a particular way, have certain tattoos on their bodies and live in an area where street gangs flourish." Does this mean they are engaging in racial profiling? No," he writes. "They are using crime data to identify possible suspects. Ethnicity is just one of many criteria they consider."

Mon, Dec 13th 2010, 19:34

Christopher Connolly, New York University, Silver Contributor (29)

Airport security epitomizes the struggle between security and privacy. The question is: is it worth the cost of our privacy for the benefit of more security? Clearly, sacrificing our personal freedoms has implications that affect the fundamental principles of American democracy. That said, I do not find the pat-downs to be at all intrusive—I’m glad someone is there to make sure I’m safe.

Thu, Dec 23rd 2010, 06:30

Patrick Edwin Moran, Wake Forest University, Platinum Contributor (201)

Each individual may have a different reaction to searches. As a man with a rather unkempt beard who frequently uses a backpack for luggage, I may get more than my share of scrutiny. I was once accosted by an overly enthusiastic immigration officer in a bus station in Detroit, so I know how uncomfortable an offensive and intentionally intimidating interrogation can be. I was even pulled off an interstate bus one time by a Safety Patrol officer because an alarmed passenger had mistaken the lens shield of my 35 mm. camera for the barrel of a pistol. But the officer behaved in a very professional way, established that I was carrying nothing lethal, apologized for the necessity of checking things out, and I went my way.

Even though I have been searched with a fair degree of rigor, I am glad that the searches were made. When searches are performed in a professional way, there should be no objection to them. The most professional and intensive search I ever underwent was before boarding a military aircraft in Taiwan that was bound for Quemoy. It was clear that the military officers who conducted the search were fully serious about maintaining security, perhaps in a way that civilian officials could not have emulated. However, it was also clear that they were being completely impersonal and professional in their conduct.

We would all be better off if every passenger and every item carried aboard a plane were adequately searched. There would then be so little chance of a terrorist act succeeding that nobody would try, and so no one would be killed or injured. I would gladly be inconvenienced for ten minutes at the start of every trip if the result would be that nobody would be killed by a terrorist act.