An interesting very public debate over how far security can justify the public sphere (in this case the TSA) intruding on the private sphere (individual airline passengers) is raging in the media, which has an obvious parallel to Lyon's reading on surveillance.
For those who haven't heard about it the summary is that 70 airports throughout the nation are beginning to use "backscatter" x-ray machines which enable TSA employees to look through the clothing of individual passengers. The TSA has allowed passengers to opt-out of the machines but these passengers will have to undergo an extremely "intimate" pat-down as a result. Concerns range from radiation exposure, to usage of the images beyond purely security. For more information here are a couple articles:
http://www.npr.org/2010/11/15/131328327/new-airport-security-rules-cause-traveler-discomfort
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/11/12/travel.screening/?hpt=Sbin
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/nov/16/local/la-me-oceanside-scan-20101116
Lyon discusses how increasingly our personal information and images are compiled, categorized and used commercially and politically. If Lyon had written his piece a little later he would take into account the recreational piece of this especially with the advent of Facebook. In recent years this information is increasingly volunteered which signals more implicit acceptance of varieties of surveillance (I don't think that is going too far out on a limb) but implementation of this "backscatter" technology has seemed to cross a line. I'm curious if this line is simply the more tangible visual/physical element of being given the option of being viewed naked remotely or being aggressively patted down? What does it say about increasing intrusion into the private sphere that our security apparatus didn't anticipate any public reaction to this? How much privacy do we need to give up collectively in order to travel safely? What are your guys thoughts about this?
11 comments:
I know that I am probably in the minority here, but when it comes to flying and security, I am personally all for tightened security. As we saw last year in Detroit, despite current precautions, it is still possible for individuals to sneak small bombs onboard of an aircraft. Where I could see a problem developing ethnic profiling against "suspects". This technology could put too much power in the arbitrary judgment in the hand of TSA employees. We have seen how arbitrariness can be very problematic, and place too much power in the hand of individuals who base their criteria of "suspicious"on their individual values, as they did in France and the use of "sick" visas.
The photo above is really eye opening.. I travel all the time on planes and never really think twice about the random pat-down or x-ray machines.. Naively, I had no idea these x-rays pretty much showed the entire naked body. It would make anyone feel a little uncomfortable or perturbed. However, under the circumstances, I wouldn't mind having one of these pictures taken of me if I was 100% sure that there were no bombs or weapons on my plane. It is interesting to think where these images go after the security check is over..
I feel like because flying is something that is voluntarily done and envolving a private enterprise, these types of x-rays can be done. However, it is checked by the government and sometimes flying is not really an option if someone has to travel great distances. Because of this I think that such intense x-rays or pat-downs should not be mandatory. Also, I think that we should question why we are okay with this? Are we scared that someone will hijack our plane? Why are we so scared of this? Yes, September 11th was awful and I guess a lot of the fear is a result of that. But I think also that we should question how much of the fear is a result of Sept 11th and how much of the fear and therefore increased security that we are okay with, is a result of government hype and rhetoric around terrorism and our current global position. I mean yes, I want everyone to be safe, but I think if personal safety was actually all that was at play here, we'd be way more prone to wear our seatbelts and to undergo mandatory drunk driving check ins than we are to undergo such rigorous screening at the airport.
I definitely agree with Caroline. The way that safety has been framed has really justified intensive pat-downs and x-rays. It falls in line with the Cold War mentality that the nation needs to submit their bodies to the governments' orders to protect themselves from the insidious enemy. It's this constant narrative of fear and terror that maintains obedience. Sure, terrorism is a possibility but nothing compared to traffic accidents.
something I just learned that's interesting-
the TSA saves all the images that the airport security thing produces (even though depending on who you hear it from they will say they don't) and anyone who has access to them (like higher up TSA agents) can send them to however they want. They can use them as training tools or examples without the written consent of the individuals which is interesting. What do you guys think of this?
I agree that a lot of these intensive new precautions have only become legitimized through perpetuating Cold War fears, but despite that, I wouldn't mind going through the extra security. I can accept that type of intrusion into privacy since these precautions would be beneficial for everyone. However, like mentioned in previous comments, a major problem now is who has access to images like these and for what reasons, especially if they're being used without consent like Caroline mentioned. I do find Caroline's statement about the contrast of personal safety in regards to cars interesting. Since nothing horrific like 9/11 occurred with cars, these Cold War fears haven't been perpetuated/legitimized through anything car-related. Therefore personal safety doesn't seem to be the main reason for intensified airport security.
I want to address the comment about this security technology putting power in the hands of TSA employees who may, willingly or unwillingly, engage in racial profiling. (A middle eastern friend recently described to me how her sister is almost always singled out for pat downs and so-called random security checks.) To this end, I think that mandatory screening may actually level the playing field a bit; as I understand it, everyone is required to undergo some form of heightened security (the machine or a pat down?).
However, we ought to seriously consider why increased security is necessary, or, perhaps even more interestingly, why it is being painted as a necessity. I know that going through security makes me a bit edgy. "Why is this necessary? Am I in danger?" It perpetrates a fear of the enemy at the same time as making us more secure with our own ability to counter that enemy. As some previous posts have mentioned, we may not mind the security if it means there is not a bomb on our plane. This, sneeking even into the analysis of a bunch of geography students practiced at critical analysis, shows how effective is the use of fear. And what this fear produces, whether we are aware or not is the concept of an enemy and and other. The fear of a bomb on our plane, even when masked as gratefulness for the monitoring of such a threat, makes the unacknowledged assumption that there is another, an other, who wants to bomb us....and it is this assumption and the gratitude which we feel for our protection that allows us to ignore that those protectors may also be the producers of that fear and be profiting from it.
I agree with Cecilia, there is a far greater chance of a car accident or a plane crash from a bird in the engine. The fear of travel security has been built up and produced because of 9-11 and the war on terror. I can recall articles of all the difficulties of security technology and failure and ineffective methods being used on top of discussions of the airlines going back in public hands so that they could better be secured. I don’t believe there has been a effective method yet and it will never be a full proof method. Like all the other technological advances, there is still human operating and human errors along with technological errors. But all the extra monitoring and surveillance that surrounds our lives, feels like a loss of freedoms on our society and as individuals. Overabundance of monitoring, and loss of privacy is pushing the norms of a society that is conforming to layers and layers of rules and regulations and policing that will push society to conform to a way established by a system that eventually limits individuals voice, actions and freedoms. I am not sure how free we can truly be under constant monitoring.
There is an unfortunate equation that seems to be universal--one of few: heightened security = restricted freedoms. The question we must ask ourselves of course, is where we draw the line between them, and where we decide to quit conceding one for another.
The main argument as to why the scans are legitimate is that air travel is a choice and a private industry and therefore that passengers willingly choose to accept scans and pat-downs. In reality, as the economic, social, and physical infrastructure of our world becomes more and more based on the use of air travel, its necessity grows.
Kris I agree that the rhetoric runs that that air travel is a choice and not of a publicly subsidized nature (as compared to Bart, etc.) but this line of reasoning seems to be a slippery slope. Will i have to drive for 5 day one way to get to New York if I don't want to be patted down or x-rayed? Is that much of a choice?
These security organizations are increasingly playing a game of catch up. Box cutters: nothing with an edge, shoe bomber: take your shoes off/no more lighters, , underwear bomber: full x ray scan of your body/full body pat down. Whereas some of these measures seem reasonable and I personally am more than willing to abide by them in order to travel and ensure that mine and others travel is safe, the more recent measures seem to be stepping over a line. What comes next?
Acknowledging that these x-ray machines do not see what is in the body just what is underneath clothing, what happens if the next 'terrorist' has an explosive in a body cavity or a bomb that is surgically implanted?
I think that the problem becomes the invasion of privacy and this picture highlights the internalized fear we now have of terrorists and all these different things we are told daily to fear. It also shows the extent and power that the federal government now has, especially with legislation such as the Patriot act and these types of invasive technology that leaves us with little constitutional protection, this is frightening because it shows how Americans are willingly to give up their rights of privacy in the name of security. It is scary how the excuse is becoming, "if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear," or "in this case if you have nothing to hide, then you wont mind us seeing you naked"
Post a Comment