If you have been following any of the more popular social media outlets in the last few days (the usual suspects: Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, Gizmodo, Engadget, ArsTechnica, etc.) you know that there has been a huge outpouring of outrage over the new security measures recently put in place by the TSA. As a frequent commenter on social media trends and a frequent flier as well, I'd like to put in my two cents worth.
I'll begin by saying I have a biased view. I've traveled as part of my job for over 30 years, sometimes taking as many as 120-130 flight segments a year. I've seen all the security measures instituted since the late 1970's. Thanks to an injury in 2009 I now have an artificial knee, so I automatically get selected for additional screening measures at any airport without one of the new, controversial backscatter x-ray machines. When I flew a couple of weeks ago I got to experience first-hand the new "pat down." It is anything but. It is a completely intrusive "feel up." Now, keep in mind that if I don't set off the metal detector, I'm on my way in a few seconds (less the usual hassles of replacing shoes, keys, phone, jacket, etc.). In the past, security would use the portable wand to ensure that it was indeed my knee making the machine go bonkers and I'd be on my way after only a few additional seconds. Not so anymore. In addition to the new "feel up," I have to endure a speech about the new methods that have been put in place for my protection and how it's necessary to ensure the safety of air travel. I've seen comments like that from lots of people in the last few days: If TSA needs to "feel us up" or do a virtual strip search, it's worth it to keep air travel safe.
One problem: That's a lie. You know it, I know it, and the government knows it. TSA isn't keeping us safe, won't keep us safe, and *can't* keep us safe. A determined group of individuals with time and resources can circumvent *any* security measures that the TSA puts in place--including virtual strip search x-ray machines. And no, I'm not going to tell you how. I will begin by saying that if you are allowed to fly wearing your own clothing and carrying your own bags, and without first getting a thorough cavity search with an endoscope, you are not 100% safe from terrorists intent on bringing down your plane. Ask any security expert and they will tell you that another terror attack will indeed happen someday (and, like every other since 9/11, it will most likely originate overseas).
Now don't get me wrong: I'm all for security. I flew on September 10, 2001 and would have flown home the afternoon of September 11, 2001 if they hadn't shut down all flights. Never mind the TSA, *passengers* will never allow another hijacking in the United States. Since 9/11 we've pretty much done everything we can while still permitting the public to fly. Shouldn't we do even more? Well, if we were 99.99999999% safe before, do virtual strip searches and personal grope sessions make us 99.999999991% safe (an improvement of .000000001%)? Does that additional one billionth of one percent warrant *any* additional security?
Let's consider a few statistics: TSA's own web site states that over 2 million passengers fly domestically in the United States every day. Over a year, that works out to 730 million passengers (365 times 2 million, which I think is high, but I'll use their figures). If the TSA catches one terrorist in a year (also high...I'm pretty sure their total catch is zero per *ever*...if they had caught anyone you would have certainly heard about what a great job they did) that's one in 730 million. By comparison your chances of winning a Powerball drawing are 1 in 54 million. Let me restate that: The chances of you winning the Powerball are 13.5 times better than the chances are that TSA will catch even a single bad guy.
In 2007, Americans died from a variety of things: heart disease (616,067), cancer (562,875), stroke (135,952), respiratory disease (127,924) were the top causes. But people died of all kinds of weird things too: lightning strikes, snakebites, killer bee attacks, etc. Think of all the bizarre ways you've heard about for cause of death and then think of this: Since 9/11, your chances of dying from *that* bizarre way were better than your chances of dying in a terrorist attack on an airline.
In any security situation, you have to balance the cost vs. the benefit. For instance, you certainly want to have homeowners insurance, but do you want to pay $1 million dollars a year to insure a $250,000 home? No. If your ultimate goal is to protect American lives, you have an additional consideration: The more intrusive the TSA methods become, the more people will choose to drive to their destination instead of fly. Guess what: people are much more likely to die in a traffic accident than in a terrorist attack. So this is clearly not about saving lives. If 10 extra people a year die in traffic accidents because the TSA has frightened them off airplanes, is that an acceptable trade off? I don't see how. Another consideration: how much time and effort are terrorists going to spend circumventing TSA security when there are about a zillion other places to attack that have no security? Isn't heightened TSA actually increasing the chances of an attack elsewhere?
I would highly recommend reading a pilot's point of view here. He points out that before 9/11 there were several terror attacks involving airlines, but we didn't overreact each time. Commerce didn't shut down and people kept flying. And airplanes weren't dropping out of the sky every day. We need to take a more sensible approach to airline security. If we were "safe" when we didn't have to take our shoes off before some idiot built a shoe bomb (and who didn't board a domestic flight screened by the TSA) are we safer if we take them off afterwards? If we were "safe" before some idiot builds an underwear bomb (and who didn't board a domestic flight screened by the TSA) are we safer because they now do? This is "barn door" security--closing the hole after it has been breached--and is no more than cover-your-ass security theater so that no bureaucrat will ever have to explain why a second shoe bomber attempted to board a flight when we already had one try.
And social media's role in all this: the outcry against the new security screening methods bubbled up to the major news outlets. What started as a few outraged tweets and Reddit posts became articles published by the AP, CNN, MSNBC and all the other major news outlets. On Monday the 22nd, the White House announced that DHS would be reviewing the new security measures. We shall see if they actually listen to the will of the crowds.
No comments:
Post a Comment