Trading Off Security for (Relative) Privacy
The issue of the new airport security requirements is still rolling around in my mind. I left Michael Heath with the final word on my prior post, as we were, to a large degree, talking past each other because our beginning assumptions were hopelessly incompatible. But just a couple of days ago a friend told me about another friend of his who was taken to a private room and strip-searched before boarding a domestic flight. A 70 year old woman who was strip-searched. A 70-year old woman who was strip-searched because, she was told, her artificial knees “represented a threat to national security.”
Rather than revive what seemed to be a pointless argument, let me just take the following informal survey of whatever self-selected sample of readers responds.
- Assume you had to fly between, say, Chicago and L.A., and there were two flights available that were comparable in cost, departure/arrival times, etc.
- Enhanced security screening would be required for all who take flight X. Those who take flight Y would only have to go through the regular post 9/11 but pre-enhanced security process.
- Assume that the enhanced security procedures are as effective as claimed, and are not mere security theater, so that flight X is somewhat less likely to be the target of terrorists than flight Y.
Which flight would you choose?