Our current hodgepodge of airport security is a mess, and I’m being nice. First, let’s look at the big current story, namely the random body scans and searches. Then, let’s ponder alternatives.
We need strong security in our air system. 9/11 and all the other terrorist attacks (or attempted attacks that have been thwarted) demonstrate this. The current choice of random body scans or searches is laughable. Provided a person has done nothing to arouse suspicion, it’s blatantly unconstitutional on many levels, most notably the 4th amendment, stating, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated […]”
If a person has done nothing to arouse any suspicion, why should that person be subjected to such draconian measures and how are that person’s 4th amendment rights not being violated? It’s entirely different if that person has somehow aroused a reasonable level of suspicion. Simply being a traveler or calling out constitutional rights does not pass this test. The current measures and methodology are unconstitutional for the unsuspicious. I think it’s also excessively costly and inconvenient, but I don’t really want to go into those here. Instead, I want to look at what could be done differently.
The problem with our current approach is if we’re waiting to stop attackers at the airport or relying on passengers to stop attackers on the plane, it’s too late. Don’t get me wrong, we still need vigilant security personnel and travelers at the airport and on planes. All travelers, even the unsuspicious, should still have to go through metal detectors, explosive detectors, bag x-rays (checked and carry-on), and security personnel should still be observing the crowd for suspicious behavior.
But, we need to be much more proactive at preventing attackers from even reaching the plane. How? We do that by screening passenger lists for red flags, doing background checks on travelers, and profiling. I know, it’s not politically correct to say that, but I’ll save my views on political correctness for another post. These three are interconnected. We need to make sure people who should be on no-fly lists are on them, and then we need to make sure that people who are on no-fly lists are actually being prevented from flying. This is accomplished through list screenings, background checks, and profiling.
I’ll probably be most critiqued for mentioning profiling, so I’ll defend that a bit. Profiling, if done properly, is legal and constitutional. One could even make an argument that the act of not profiling is unconstitutional, but I’m not willing to go that far. If we have credible data that suggests that certain demographics and/or individuals are a higher risk than others, why should we ignore that data? I’ll use two unrelated examples to support this.
First, hypothetically speaking, let’s suppose, for the sake of argument, there is a major law on the books with significant negative consequences that has never been violated by a certain demographic and is most often violated by another demographic (99% of the time). Let’s also assume the data is properly and completely collected. In other words, there is no inherent bias of any kind. Wouldn’t it be reasonable for law enforcement, from the perspectives of resource allocation and efficiency, to focus their prevention and enforcement efforts of said law on those who are shown to be more likely to violate (or attempt to violate) said law? To clarify, that doesn’t mean they stop watching the former demographic (or all other demographics) for that law because there’s a first time for pretty much everything and the underlying factors contributing to the violation of that law could change. It also doesn’t mean they unfairly target or violate the rights of individuals in the latter demographic because it’s still a case-by-case thing and everyone is still innocent until proven guilty.
Second, let’s think about insurance companies for a minute. They collect and analyze data constantly attempting to assess their risk and subsequently charge premiums accordingly. Most people think it’s reasonable to charge a higher premium to assume higher risk. These assessments are based on general demographic data as well as the history of the applicant. Assuming no rights are violated, why should law enforcement be any different?
We need to rethink air security and law enforcement in general. This article was meant as a starting point based on a current issue.
No comments:
Post a Comment