4 ms·

How short-sighted. If they were removed because someone wrote a bad check would that be acceptable to you as well. The devices are an invasion of privacy and

How short-sighted. If they were removed because someone wrote a bad check would that be acceptable to you as well. The devices are an invasion of privacy and that should be confronted head-on, otherwise, there will just be the next invasive device to deal with.

potatolicious 16y ago
But how did they get there? The entire security theater industry, along with the defense industry, is built on top of an untold number of conflicts of interest and perverse incentives. Did the scanners cause controversy before they were installed? Sure, and under any sane system of governance they would have never progressed beyond that point. The problem was that, at every point that mattered, our officials were incentivized to invade our privacy (e.g., campaign contributions, direct profit from sale of devices, etc). It seems to me far more productive, and far more likely to succeed to attack corruption and realign incentives than it is to make a moralistic case in front of a bunch of amoral thugs.
SkyMarshal 16y ago
Short-sighted is not understanding that the example in this article is just a symptom of a much bigger problem, possibly the single greatest problem facing the US at this time, and needs to be opposed not only everywhere it occurs, but also at the root. Lawrence Lessig, the expert, can explain it more detail: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnF6WI5y0aU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnF6WI5y0aU
jdp23 16y ago
We'll have to deal with the next invasive device and the next invasive airport profiling proposal in any case. So yes we have to confront the issues head-on -- and we also want to win this battle so that we're in a better shape for the next one. Why is it short-sited to include anti-corruption and transparency advocates in the coalition here? The REAL ID battle of 2007 is a good template for privacy and civil liberties successes. The coalition involved privacy and civil liberties organizations, security experts, libertarians, progressives, migrant rights activists, fiscal conservatives, agriculturalists, transgendered people, biblical literalists, and states-right'ers. A lot of people believe that we won largely on the cost issues. By contrast, activism against the PATRIOT Act and FISA hasn't assembled that broad coalition. And guess what? Thus far we've lost. So yes, I certainly agree that it's critical to confront the privacy issues head-on -- and there's plenty of that going on too. I just don't think that's the only way to approach it.

potatolicious 16y ago

But how did they get there? The entire security theater industry, along with the defense industry, is built on top of an untold number of conflicts of interest and perverse incentives. Did the scanners cause controversy before they were installed? Sure, and under any sane system of governance they would have never progressed beyond that point. The problem was that, at every point that mattered, our officials were incentivized to invade our privacy (e.g., campaign contributions, direct profit from sale of devices, etc). It seems to me far more productive, and far more likely to succeed to attack corruption and realign incentives than it is to make a moralistic case in front of a bunch of amoral thugs.

SkyMarshal 16y ago

Short-sighted is not understanding that the example in this article is just a symptom of a much bigger problem, possibly the single greatest problem facing the US at this time, and needs to be opposed not only everywhere it occurs, but also at the root. Lawrence Lessig, the expert, can explain it more detail: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnF6WI5y0aU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnF6WI5y0aU

jdp23 16y ago

We'll have to deal with the next invasive device and the next invasive airport profiling proposal in any case. So yes we have to confront the issues head-on -- and we also want to win this battle so that we're in a better shape for the next one. Why is it short-sited to include anti-corruption and transparency advocates in the coalition here? The REAL ID battle of 2007 is a good template for privacy and civil liberties successes. The coalition involved privacy and civil liberties organizations, security experts, libertarians, progressives, migrant rights activists, fiscal conservatives, agriculturalists, transgendered people, biblical literalists, and states-right'ers. A lot of people believe that we won largely on the cost issues. By contrast, activism against the PATRIOT Act and FISA hasn't assembled that broad coalition. And guess what? Thus far we've lost. So yes, I certainly agree that it's critical to confront the privacy issues head-on -- and there's plenty of that going on too. I just don't think that's the only way to approach it.