It’s a topic that’s been hashed over and over again in the media, particularly recently (given the attempted attack that occurred on Dec. 25th), and Gizmodo summed up my sentiments pretty well.
For those of you that follow my “stuff” pretty regularly (stuff being twitter, this blog, whatever else), you’ll know I fly a lot. Maybe I’m jaded, but TSA has consistently seemed to be mostly a facade to give the american public a sense that the federal government is doing something to protect us against terrorist plots.
Now, don’t get me wrong, I don’t want to die on a plane (I don’t know anyone who would). I don’t want the US of A to be insecure, or susceptible to terrorist (or other) attacks. This whole TSA vs. “the turrists” thing that’s been happening recently strikes me as very similar in many ways to network security vs. hackers (CS major, don’t judge).
It’s a game of cat and mouse, ultimately. We can do everything within our power to secure ourselves against a threat, but those people who want to get in (or attack us) will find a way. So the question becomes, how secure do we want to be? How inconvenient do we want our process of flying (or using our computers) to be? To jump back and forth between metaphors: Sure, we could require users to maintain 3 passwords, and require them to enter those three passwords as well as biometric scanning every 30 seconds, but no one would ever get any work done. Just like we could start requiring people to show up 24 hours before their flight, and go through rigorous background checks (all at their expense), just before they’re even allowed into the main concourse, but no one would fly (that’s about as secure as we’ll get, at least on the flight front).
To what end though? Is this really how we want to be going about “securing” ourselves? It’s been shown that it’s quite a bit more likely to be struck by lightning than it is to die in a terrorist attack. Does this mean we should refrain from wearing all metal, and construct elaborate tunnels underground? No, probably not. It’s more likely that one would die in a car crash than that they’d die in a terrorist attack. Does this mean we’re all supposed to sell our cars, and walk to the places we need to go? No, that would be ridiculous. Clearly you get the point.
I’m not advocating removing security, I think it plays an important role in keeping travelers and the country as a whole safe. I am advocating pausing, and spending some time actually thinking about the effects of the measures being put in place, and how effective they actually are. I’ve carried knitting needles through airport security, with no questions asked. I’ve also had too much technology in my bag, where the xray couldn’t see everything in it. I wasn’t asked to prove that this technology was actually technology, they just wanted to look through what I was carrying.
Obviously this is all anecdotal (albeit, by me, so clearly it has some meaning >_>), but it seems rather indicative of the rigor of TSA (this was pre Dec. 25). Let’s fix this before it gets out of hand, for both my sake, the sake of the reputation of the US, the sake of everyone else trying to fly within, into, or out of the US, and even the sake of TSA/airport employees. Please.
), what I do care about is showing our government that we care. If we sit idlly by, and complain about the way things are going to our neighbors, that never gets back to government (unless you’re lucky enough to live next to 1600 Pennsylvanian Ave., Washington DC). If we as a population become more vocal, more involved, and more willing to change the way we do things to be more in line with our beliefs on a topic, that can only be a good thing. If all the people in cities who drive about 20 mi. every day to work were willing to push for affordable electric cars, we’d be able to cut our carbon emission use as a country by an enormous amount.
