In light of invasive nature of the devices and the searches being implemented by the TSA and my own passionate support for privacy rights, how can I be opposed to this protest? My objections fall primarily into three categories.
Wednesday is the busiest day of the year at America's airports, with long lines and delays expected in the best of times. Heightened security increases those delays, and for thousands of travelers that just want to get home for the holidays, large scale protests such as this one will only intensify those delays further. Choosing this day to cause disruptions at airports will hurt the very group of people the protests are designed to protect - fellow travelers. The TSA and the government have already heard and responded to the concerns and if they are not adequately addressed then some form of public protest is certainly appropriate, but not on Wednesday.
In addition to increasing the frustration of the average traveler, by choosing the day before Thanksgiving to snarl up traffic at airports, the protests could easily cause safety concerns of their own. Already long lines will become even more congested, and a terrorist strike at an airport terminal could do far more damage than actually getting a weapon onto a plane. Security will have to be increased to deal with this threat which will mean even more inconvenience for you and other passengers.
But most significantly, I am concerned about the very real ongoing threat to airplane security. We know that the danger is real, and that the consequences of failing to prevent an attack are grave. Any attempt to increase security must always be measured against the impact of the measures taken to prevent it. I've seen copies of the grainy images produced by the airport scanners and although I am not a fan, I do not believe they are so intrusive as to justify the reduction in security of taking them offline. No, they are not going to detect a bomb or catch a terrorist this holiday season by using the scanners, because those who would attempt to get such a device onto a plane will find another way to do so. The purpose of the scanners, just as the purpose of searching shoes and x-raying carry-on luggage is deterrence.
This deterrence must be balanced against the violation of privacy which, while high, is also avoidable. We have always recognized a sliding scale of privacy rights. A much higher threshold must be reached before the government can enter or search your house than your car, for example. This is based not only on increased expectations of privacy in your home but also on a sliding scale of risk. Passengers boarding an airplane have a lower expectation of privacy and the risk to the general public is much higher, justifying more invasive screening mechanisms.
The question then becomes what is the least invasive method we can employ to maximize the safety of our air travel network? Nobody likes having to take their shoes off to pass through security, and nobody wants to step into the body imagers the TSA is using now but we know of no other way of detecting devices like those used by the shoe bomber, or the bomb smuggled onto a plane last year in Abdul Mutallib's underwear.
I, like almost everyone else, am uncomfortable with these security measures. But as someone that plans to fly home for Christmas this year, I am even less comfortable with the idea of not taking precautions that could prevent another such attack.
This is not to say that I think the TSA should be given a blank check, nor that I think the TSA has done a good job in rolling out new security measures. The history of the agency, formed after 9/11, has been one of missteps and badly implemented policies. From no-fly lists that mistakenly included congressmen and infants, to third party vendors given exclusive contracts to ship confiscated items back to travelers (over 30 dollars to mail a cigarette lighter), to pat down searches of young children and exposing the breasts of a college girl in public, the TSA has done a poor job of implementing policies and procedures. There are also legitimate concerns about the cost of these new machines and possible connections to former DHS head Michael Chertoff. These are issues that must be addressed and rectified going forward if the government expects to maintain public support for the security measures at our airports.
