Enhanced Security

Michael Heath says:

James Hanley wrote:

From my perspective you’re still minimizing the violation of liberty aspect of this whole deal–both the scanners and the enhanced pat downs.

I don’t think I am; instead I think you’re not putting your criticisms within the context that our federal government is under enormous political pressures to stop all terrorist attempts. So we both think the other is missing a key factor in determining one’s position.

James wrote:

Anyone who takes a serious look at the odds of being killed by a terrorist would probably stop worrying, and certainly could hardly see having their nude body photographed or having themselves roughly groped as a good price to pay for a minuscule increase in safety.

And I think this is where my manufacturing background provides me an advantage to enhance your perspective where I’ve seen no evidence you’re there yet. I’m perfectly cognizant of the remote odds and have always argued on this point within that context. But I’m also perfectly cognizant of the ramifications of approaching a zero defect level which is what the American public almost monolithically demands along with the enormously disproportionate effects of a successful terrorist attack on our economy, foreign relations, and political climate. I don’t think your arguments take this pressure into account as much as it should when weighing the costs and benefits.

We both know that if three thousand more people died from a current societal affliction: car accidents, cigarette smoking, cancer; there’d be little affect on a national scale like a successful terrorist attack. We both know the odds of dying from certain causes and where terrorism is on that list. We both know therefore that the public’s demand isn’t completely rational, that we are overreacting to this threat in some ways though I’m not willing to concede scanners is an overreaction – not even close*. That’s partly because I am willing to subscribe to the fact though that twelve people dead from one terrorist attack on U.S. soil is worth a disproportionate response than much more than twelve people dead in car accidents over the holiday weekend than last year. Partly because success breeds more attempts and more recruits while a blip in car accidents is most likely a result well within what we expect and accept.

Terrorism is a consistently successful tactic because the reaction is so much more disproportionate than the harm. However I’m also concerned that such success in this world will breed more capabilities to do far worse, where our government has an obligation to consider that and create systemic initiatives to avoid that being our future reality – mostly from reducing the demand for terrorism which frustratingly gets little to no public support, but also with containment measures like screening passengers and luggage on flights within our jurisdiction.

While I made my position clear early in this exchange (passively OK with scanners and pat-downs), my arguments have not been primarily supportive of that; instead I’ve been arguing that your argument is defective. Defective because you continue to ignore the near-monolithic public demand on our government to reduce the threat of a successful terrorist attack. I only wish the demand were more heavily on reducing demand for terrorism but that is not our reality as you well know. I think we must consider this obligation and yes, as you point out the infringement on our rights as well. I think you fail by making your argument when you avoid considering public demand that the Bush and now Obama Administration has as its framework.

I don’t have a problem with the scanners because my background has me pretty confident they are or will soon be an effective containment tool though of course not remotely capable of approaching zero defects (I’m guessing they take it from around a hundred thousand defects per million to tens of thousands of defects per million). I do have a problem with some of the pat-down stories, not all of them, but some of them. I’m also cognizant that no process like this was ever initially defect-free in terms of how it handles the people who are forced to submit to it, there are growing pains. First because it’s a human operation which always yield high defects and second the scope and volume of inspectors is so widely dispersed and high. So I’m taking a dispassionate approach about it confident that we will see modifications to the pat-down process to reduce the parts many people find objectionable (though not me). In fact I bet there’s engineers out there trying to figure out a method to do a secondary scan which doesn’t require any physical contact.

James:

I’m sorry if on this particular case I sound angry and come close to treating you like I often treat one notable person at Ed’s blog, but it just looks to me like you’re saying, “the police state doesn’t cost much money, so it’s a good thing.”

I’m not offended by your response. I do think your anger is clouding your judgment. We’re coming at this from two different perspectives, your’s is the classic libertarian argument, mine is the pragmatic “sell-out” argument.

I love libertarian arguments because they help test whether a policy proposal is really a road we want to go down, they set a standard which is sometimes realistic and should be considered in the end result and sometimes utopian to a fault. I appreciate your arguments on one aspect; my position as I’ve stated several times is not confidently held. Yes I’ve come down in support of the feds, but would better appreciate more information. I got some today on the financial cost, so now I know two of the four factors I originally asked for: financial cost and the current cost to our liberty rights (which I always knew). The two missing factors are the marginal differences with and without this process and then compare that marginal defect rate improvement to competing processes like that which Israel does or other discovered ‘best practices’. The former I think I can guess on pretty well given my manufacturing background which puts three factors in favor of doing it, the latter (benchmarking) is one I would love to see some good articles analyzing. I’m guessing the end game out of all this when the technology matures will eventually be a remote scan which is done without our active involvement, e.g., walking through a hallway with other passengers where the scanning equipment is fairly unobtrusive and we’re not singled-out during the process (assuming we pass).

That of course fails your liberty test, but not mine and I’m guessing not the vast majority of Americans. I also see little chance of successfully arguing your individual right to avoid inspection. That’s because I perceive the majority’s collective right to significantly filter out possible terrorists and dangerous materials through this screening process vastly supersedes the violation of your right (in a court, that still provides the legislative branch as a matter of recourse).

James:

Perhaps you give no value to your dignity, but I do value mine, and that of my daughters.

Now come on James, this is an example of how your anger is not helping your position. Of course I value my dignity and that of my family and your’s as well for that matter. As I told you the other evening my wife the normally ardent privacy advocate told me she’d accept going through such an experience as a price to pay for our security. I would as well. We do not perceive this as an attack on our dignity much more than getting poked and prodded by a nurse and a doctor. I do not mean to minimize this, I realize others don’t feel like we do and I am trying to determine if their responses are legitimate or not. I do think at this point people can be and should be capable of preparing themselves for one of these in advance and can handle it with dignity even if the inspector does not. Therefore I think once these outliers get reported and people have time to perceive what’s going-on, there’ll be far more prepared to have it done on them. That perception is going at hyper-speed given the nightly news is showing these pat-downs relentlessly.

I am concerned you’ve taken a few anecdotes out of many transactions and extended the damage farther than it actually is where I think this specific process can become less obstrusive as the technology and process mature. Just like we talked about how low the threat of being a casualty from a terrorist attack, what are the odd of being mentally incapable of handling such a pat-down if one is prepared for such and realizes others have made it through with no mental anguish? I’m guessing very low and that we can adapt this process to reduce that much further, again this is a new process so course there will be bugs (while fully cognizant the loss of privacy still exists even after process improvements). Seriously, you don’t think you could prepare your kids for this just like how you have to when they go to a doctor? I get that you don’t want to, but again, I think one must argue that in light of public demand for no planes going down by terrorists.

*And a second irrational public demand is for zero defects (terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, they seem oblivious even to American casualties when they’re off our shore). I’m confident they’re clueless regarding the enormous price both financially and to our rights to approach zero.Report