Alrighty folks, this is more important than whether or not Dan Rather got sucked in by some forgeries. It effects more American citizens than the fact that 1035 and still counting American soldiers have died in a war based on a faulty premise. In fact it falls somewhere between what will happen when Alan Greenspan announces an interest increase today and the current fear-mongering regarding terrorism and the upcoming elections.
Bruce Schneier has been a busy fellow, having a commentary on the Trusted Traveller system in The Boston Globe and this brilliant piece on the No-Fly List over at Newsday. If you only remember one thing from either of these items, let it be this quote:
Imagine a list of suspected terrorists so dangerous that we can’t ever let them fly, yet so innocent that we can’t arrest them – even under the draconian provisions of the Patriot Act. This is the federal government’s “no-fly” list.
There it is. If they are terrorists, arrest them and charge them with something. If they are not, get them off the list. But don’t pretend this list makes you safer. Not only does it assume that terrorists will fly under their real names, it shifts TSA attention from people acting suspiciously to people who happen to have a particular name. That’s right, it makes you less secure.
The Trusted Traveller system has similar fatal flaws. It assumes that only good guys can get the bit of paper. It forgets how many people live perfectly normal lives before turning to violence.
Of course, the idea that a bit of paper makes you Not-A-Terrorist is under assault from others as well. Take the case of John Gilmore, who not only wants to know why the airline wants to see his identification, he wants to know why he’s not allowed to see the law that allegedly requires him to show it. The Justice Department still wants to keep the whole case secret. But how can ordinary citizens follow secret laws? Indeed, one editorial asks “Are we even to be arrested for violating ‘secret’ laws, which we couldn’t possibly know existed?”
In the meantime, anybody who needs to fly had better have their bits of paper in order and be prepared to remove their shoes and jackets, and be prepared for a pat-down. Strangely, this particular story, which effects millions of air travelers, is being covered primarily by local tv news teams, rather than the big news sources. By way of comparison, CNN’s top news stories as I write include details of a murder trial, a man falling at the Grand Canyon, and Bill Gates getting a raise. With no disrespect to the people involved, odds are very good none of these stories has any impact on you whatsoever.
Even more bothersome to me is the public reaction to this treatment: “It’s alright, as long as it makes us all safer.” I fail to see any way that removing jackets makes anyone safer. As for pat-downs, I would be very interested in seeing the guidelines deciding who must be physically searched in this manner. I would also be curious to see how the rules are applied, as there is plenty of room for abuse of this opportunity to feel up random strangers.
Finally, do you remember when a series of bad storms or other disasters would have been considered a Sign From God? This guy does.
