3 ms·

This program sounds like a huge, irresponsible waste of public resources. However I don’t exactly see how merely being observed in public amounts to the dystopi

by bww 8y ago

This program sounds like a huge, irresponsible waste of public resources. However I don’t exactly see how merely being observed in public amounts to the dystopian surveillance state this article seems to imply. Is going unnoticed in public reasonably considered to be a right? I would suggest the problem here is the extent of resources that are wasted by the government watching the innocuous behavior of arbitrary people in an airport.

dillondoyle 8y ago
Article does mention extra screening times. And we don't know the selection criteria. If it's a proxy for 'has brown skin' as an excuse to surveil and add extra screening to a US citizen that would run afoul of rights. I don't know, but I assume we don't have a right to avoid extra screening that is based on a 'fair' selection? The article did mention travel to Turkey as a trigger, which has been in my top 5 places I'd like to visit next. Would suck to get held up for extra screenings just because I went there.
a3n 8y ago
> This program sounds like a huge, irresponsible waste of public resources. However I don’t exactly see how merely being observed in public amounts to the dystopian surveillance state this article seems to imply. It's the same argument against "I have nothing to hide." Consider two people, both objectively innocent. One is surveilled, one is not. The surveilled person, merely by coming to the attention of the government, is at risk of mistakes, misjudgment, quota satisfaction, resume building, budget justification, extortion by criminal government employees bad personal life and resulting sour disposition of the watcher, etc. Just because they became noticed. The unsurveilled person is safe. In firearms training, you learn not to point a gun at something unless you intend to destroy it. You should also not point a government at someone unless they have at least shown some reason beyond existence that it's worth potentially destroying their well being.

by bww 8y ago

dillondoyle 8y ago

Article does mention extra screening times. And we don't know the selection criteria. If it's a proxy for 'has brown skin' as an excuse to surveil and add extra screening to a US citizen that would run afoul of rights. I don't know, but I assume we don't have a right to avoid extra screening that is based on a 'fair' selection? The article did mention travel to Turkey as a trigger, which has been in my top 5 places I'd like to visit next. Would suck to get held up for extra screenings just because I went there.

a3n 8y ago

> This program sounds like a huge, irresponsible waste of public resources. However I don’t exactly see how merely being observed in public amounts to the dystopian surveillance state this article seems to imply. It's the same argument against "I have nothing to hide." Consider two people, both objectively innocent. One is surveilled, one is not. The surveilled person, merely by coming to the attention of the government, is at risk of mistakes, misjudgment, quota satisfaction, resume building, budget justification, extortion by criminal government employees bad personal life and resulting sour disposition of the watcher, etc. Just because they became noticed. The unsurveilled person is safe. In firearms training, you learn not to point a gun at something unless you intend to destroy it. You should also not point a government at someone unless they have at least shown some reason beyond existence that it's worth potentially destroying their well being.