From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Wed Sep 12 2001 - 06:30:02 MDT
I have to disagree with some of Christian's and Charlie's statements.
For example, one reporter discussed today the response of Congress
to the 1983 bombing of the Capitol Building. It was suggested that
you would have to prevent people from having access to the Capitol
to make it safe. The response of the congressional leadership was
to determine that "no" you could not separate the symbols of freedom
from the people. That would destroy what freedom was all about.
I think the same will occur here.
Mario Cumo offered some interesting comments on this generating the
will to do some things that are easy and simple to do. Why do
we allow knives up to 4 inches in carry-on luggage? Is that really
a "necessary" freedom? Is having my bags or luggage X-rayed and
sniffed a restriction of my freedom when I'm placing myself in a
situation where, whether I'm a crazy person or a terrorist, I could
use weapons or bombs to endanger others? I'd say no -- that knowing
such security is in place should increase our confidence that we may
safely travel freely. Is there a right to be free from extensive
security, background, and even drug checks for all individuals
related to airport and airline security and servicing?
I'd say no. If you want that job, that goes with the territory.
(When this is all said and done, I suspect we will find there
may have been some fairly significant screw ups in this regard.)
Would having computer systems that did automated matching of
airline passenger lists with FBI/CIA/NSA lists of suspicious
persons be a loss of freedom? Would being required to have
forgery resistant "air travel" passports entail a loss of
freedom? Only if you think one of your freedoms is the "right"
to diminish the rights that other passengers who seek a high
degree of confidence that you are a "trustably" safe passenger.
I would doubt that the U.S. would ever manage to pass the
encryption restrictions that I believe the French and the
Russians have already passed (where the use of such methods is,
in theory, outlawed to at least some degree). There is a
big difference between a desire for privacy and a situation
where you can get your hands on a weapon of mass destruction.
Would maintenance of government lists of people who use
encrypted communications be useful at increasing monitoring
of such individuals? Should such people be subjected to
more stringent security measures at airports? I think these
are reasonable things to consider. You can have your privacy --
but the price you have to pay for it is increased scrutiny
when you are in situations where you may have access to WoMD.
I think a sane analysis of the risks and benefits will prevail.
Do I think I'll ever again be able to arrive at an airport 15
minutes before the flight and still make the plane. I suspect
probably not. But that is the price I may simply have to pay
to have a relative degree of confidence that I will reach
my destination safely.
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:10:31 MST