Saturday Night Live is known for its humorous skits about political issues facing the country, and last week's episode was no exception. One skit, though, had a particularly potent message. The sketch begins like a late-night adult chat-line commercial: "Feeling lonely this holiday season? Looking for a little human interaction? Do you want to feel contact in certain special places?" The camera then pans away from the three female actresses toward three male ones in security uniforms who follow up the questions: "Why not go through security at an airport?" This faux commercial alludes to the Transportation Security Administration's new airport security precautions. Also, the skit voices the general sentiment that full-body scanners and invasive pat-downs are unnecessary additions to American airport security procedures and violate Americans' privacy.
One major issue with the full-body scanners is their ineffectiveness. Martin Scheinin, United Nations Human Rights Council special rapporteur on counter-terrorism, says that "full-body scanners are ineffective in detecting a genuine terrorist threat if they do not reveal dangerous substances in body cavities, body folds or in hand luggage." These body scanners and intensive pat-downs were instituted to stop potential terrorists, but these individuals can easily find ways to smuggle explosives aboard a plane without detection. Rafi Sela, president of A.R. Challenges, an international transportation security consultant based in Israel - a region threatened just as much, if not more by terrorists than the United States - said, "I don't know why everybody is running to buy these expensive and useless machines. I can overcome the body scanners with enough explosives to bring down a Boeing 747." In essence, Sela implies that terrorists will have little trouble finding ways to dodge the new security measures.
Because terrorists can find other means to bring explosives on a plane, two problematic situations arise. First, why are we subjugating the American public to such humiliating procedures if these precautions will not hinder terrorists? Is there another reason why TSA agents must see passengers naked before boarding? If there is, I am not aware of it, but the fact that terrorists can still evade such measures to endanger passengers begs another question: How far is the TSA willing to go? Usually, slippery-slope arguments are logical fallacies, but they seem applicable to American airline security. After the "shoe bomber" attempted to set off a bomb, passengers were required to remove their shoes before going through security. Then came fears about terrorists concocting bombs in shampoo bottles onboard planes, leading airport security officials to create severe restrictions on all liquids. Because Umar Abdulmutallab - the "underwear bomber" - hid the bottle in his underwear, Americans are now subjected to full-body scans. What will the TSA do when a terrorist is caught stowing explosive material in a body cavity? Surely Americans would not tolerate even more invasive searches - particularly ones that involve cavity searches?
Current search policies already infringe on personal privacy. Because children are also subject to the new security procedures, commentators such as William Anderson, a professor of economics at Frostburg State University in Maryland, suggest the scanners are a means of creating child pornography. Even for adults, the security procedures can open the door for harassment at the hands of TSA agents and managers. A YouTube video titled, "TSA Breast Milk Screening Harassment" shows security camera footage of a woman being harangued and singled out by TSA agents because she refuses to put a container of breast milk though X-ray screening because she was afraid of radiation contamination. Even though breast milk, according to the TSA website, is classified as a medical liquid and is not, therefore, subject to such screenings, the woman was still detained and harassed and eventually missed her flight. Although passengers might have been harassed before, the new procedures violate personal privacy and create an atmosphere in which TSA agents can more easily detain ordinary travelers.
It is understandable that people must make sacrifices to prevent future terrorist attacks in a post 9/11 world, but at what point should Americans draw the line? The new TSA procedures unnecessarily violate Americans' personal privacy, and sacrificing liberty for the sake of security, in this case, is much too dear.
Nathan Jones' column appears Thursdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at n.jones@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
CARTER: U.Va. Health owes clarity to transplant patients
By Nathaniel Carter | 2 days agoUnfortunately, this negative press is fully the fault of U.Va. Health — it failed to address significant stakeholder concerns when crafting its justification.
EDITORIAL: Upholding medical amnesty is a collective effort
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoUniversity leadership, Greek life organizations and students themselves must recommit to the safety provided by an effective and knowledgeable use of medical amnesty.
KURTZWEIL: Dockworkers’ unions cannot avoid the threat of automation
By Paul Kurtzweil | 4 days agoInstead of continuing to demand decreased automation, the union should work with the legislature in the hopes of driving investment into the reorganization of the current workforce.
