Posted by
glen ep ropella on
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/TSA-security-technology-and-opting-out-tp5759060p5771745.html
Owen Densmore wrote circa 10-11-24 10:01 AM:
> Sez Bruce: Exactly two things have made airplane travel safer since
> 9/11: reinforcing the cockpit door, and convincing passengers they
> need to fight back. Everything else has been a waste of money.
I'll pick _that_ nit! ;-) Anything that provides a foil for coming to
terms with how modern technology invades our privacy is _not_ a waste of
money. I often come down on the side of "Screw it. Our privacy is gone
anyway; so why worry about it." (Otherwise, why would I have a Facebook
page?) But there are many who don't feel that way ... and some days I
don't feel that way either.
More importantly, I think the backscatter machines and pat downs present
us with an opportunity to examine how we feel about the risk taking and
benefit/cost spectra. If you pretend they're spaces and cross them, you
can think about the 2D space:
b/c high
^
II | I
|
risk averse <--------> risk prone
|
III | IV
v
c/b high
People in the I quadrant are action oriented and either don't perceive,
don't care, or ignore the costs ... or they're rational and the benefits
actually do outweigh the costs. I'd place Bush II in that category
because he didn't seem to place much weight on the costs of his admin's
actions. I also place sky divers, bungee jumpers, and entrepreneurs,
including morons like myself who try to bootstrap companies, in that
quadrant. ;-)
People in quadrant II are probably inherently good natured and
stereotypically liberal in their thoughts, but conservative in their
actions. Someone like Einstein or Spinoza probably fits that bill. You
can come up with your own examples of where you or others might fit.
The point is that the backscatter machines and pat-down methods (as well
as profiling and whatnot) can all provide context for where one _wants_
to be in that 2D space versus where one _is_ in that 2D space. They are
a concrete situation we can use to orient ourselves ethically. And I
always appreciate tools like that to help me think. Without the actual
implementation bearing down on you, it's easy to chalk it off as
"philosophical" or, at best, a thought experiment. I.e. people who
aren't forced to think, usually don't.
So, it's definitely not a waste of money. Consider it practical
philosophy ... bringing the abstract, obscure, musings of those weirdos
at the EFF and ACLU down to the people, in terms they can understand.
--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095,
http://tempusdictum.com============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at
http://www.friam.org