Picture: AP

The Fourth Amendment gives U.S. citizens a right to privacy; the Patriot Act takes it away under the guise of anti-terrorism.  The new enhanced pat-down policy and AIT (advanced imaging technology) scanners leave nothing to the imagination of the traveling public.  Advanced pat-downs are a new synonym for groping and the back-scatter imaging scanners are mandatory peepshows.  Where is the line drawn for going too far in personal invasion?  The TSA has crossed that line according to recent travelers that have been traumatized by this governmental, warrantless search and seizure. Is it time for the citizens to put their collective foot down and demand reform?

I can remember up until 2001 being able to go through a security checkpoint with a coffee in my hands, my shoes on, my computer and video camera still in my bag.  Anyone could pass through with a Costco bottle of shampoo in their bag, and anyone that wanted to see them off.  Today, a traveler is lucky to get through with their dignity.  On the U.S. Governments TSA website, there is a link to an article on the USA Today website, stating “Most OK with TSA full body scanners”(USA Today”).  The article quotes a Gallop Poll showing that “of 542 adults, 78 percent of travelers approve of the use of full body scanners”(USA Today).  In a CNET News article entitled “Backlash grows over TSA’s ‘naked strip searches’”, TSA spokeswoman is quoted saying “We have received minimal complaints”(CNET). The article goes on to say that “the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a nonprofit advocacy group, filed against the TSA and Homeland Security last week”(CNET), claiming that the traveling public crying foul. The American Civil Liberties Union’s website reports TSA pat-down guidelines changed October of 2010, “The TSA has recently changed its guidelines and these pat-downs are now much more invasive. Screeners are now authorized to use the front of their hands and to touch areas around breasts and groins”(ACLU).  The ACLU is in the process of compiling complaints via their official website.  The data is being gathered to support their position while they continue to file complaints against the TSA and The Department of Homeland Security. On the subject of the new pat-down procedures, the official statement given on October 28, 2010 is

“TSA is in the process of implementing new pat-down procedures at checkpoints nationwide as one of our many layers of security to keep the traveling public safe. Pat-downs are one important tool to help TSA detect hidden and dangerous items such as explosives. Passengers should continue to expect an unpredictable mix of security layers that include explosives trace detection, advanced imaging technology, canine teams, among others.”(TSA)

On the topic of Advanced Imaging Technology(AIT), the TSA had this to say, “TSA has implemented strict measures to protect passenger privacy, which is ensured through the anonymity of the image”(TSA).  Basically, the device has software that will fuzz out the image of the passengers face.

Terrorism is real and it has become a part of our everyday vigilance.  Most people carry fear with them on a regular basis trying to be aware of those around them that may pose threat.  This vigilance has also become paranoia. If you apply the theory of cultivation, you can realize that the amount of media coverage has created an unrealistic fear of terrorism in our daily lives.  The media has spoon fed us as a public to feel that the threat of terrorism can happen to anybody at any moment.  This simply is not true.  If you look at your life over the last six months, how may terrorist acts have you witnessed?

People will argue that they feel more confident flying with these extreme measures of security.  They will tell you that they are fearful of a terrorist being on their flight.  I have flown over 200 times since 2001 and have never seen a terrorist or had my life in danger of a terrorist threatening my life.  The fact that a TSA agent that I have never met before has more liberties with my body then a person that I am on my second date with, is a huge concern.

If you are going to travel by air, be prepared, you will quite possibly experience an invasion of your privacy and freedoms.  If you are expected to submit to nude imaging, or search of your genital areas by a complete stranger with no regard for your privacy or dignity, something is wrong here in my opinion.  Yes, I hold the government and the air industry responsible for providing a safe transportation product, but at the same time I feel that there is a limit to the amount of personal violation that should be acceptable.  The Patriot Act appears to be a broad brush that cannot be easily challenged and can implement pretty much anything under the guise of anti-terrorism.  We the people need to exercise our freedom of speech and get out and convince our political leaders/ policy makers that this is absolutely unacceptable!

Photo from CNET News

According to this story by Stephen Shankland in an article at CNET News, computer technology can be printed on virtually anything.  Does this frighten anyone other then me?  The amount of data that can be collected about your every action could soon be accessible to anyone.

We are now being told the Xerox is capable of using inkjet printing methods to apply computer circuitry to any surface.  There are may cool ideas that this stokes as well as scary ones too.  Let us dive into both the pros and cons of this, although one man’s con may be another man’s pro (yikes).

Lets start with the bad so we can conclude on a positive.  If I am wearing a pair of Calvin Klein underwear laced with this pre-printed computer circuitry, then every toilet, changing room, department store, restaurant, airport, etc., can track my every move and report it to anyone paying for this information.  This takes geo-tagging to a completely different level.  A small pre-printed size tag can be captured and  tracked by any device programmed to read it no matter where I go, scares the hell out of me.  I can be followed by anyone at any time.  Do you really want people to know that you spent 15 minutes in the Macy’s bathroom in Seattle on November 26^th?  Do you want your significant other to know that you were at the flower shop purchasing a dozen roses for her as a surprise for your anniversary, before she gets them?  Talk about Pandora’s box!  I could go on and on about how this will make most people very paranoid.

The upside to this is just as impactful.  If your child is missing and has personalized data technology printed on their clothing, it would be very easy for law enforcement to find them.  I can see this being a new feature promoted by OnStar; “ OnStar, how can I help you?”  “Yes, my child is missing, can you locate her?”  “Yes Sir, she is in line at Hollister in the Phoenix Mall, would you like me to zap her for you?”  Wow, how technology has progressed. Maybe your turtleneck has Bluetooth technology built in so you don’t need that annoying ear piece.  Your imagination is the only limit on this one.

The bottom line is that we all have to take a real close look at how invasive we want to let technology get.  I personally don’t want big brother in my pants!

After reading the article “The YouTube Presidency” from the New York Times, I have found myself giving YouTube much thought.  It brings the question to the table; why and how has using this medium been so well received by the posters as well as the viewers?

First, let me start with the posters.  There are many benefits to having this sort of venue.  A person or group that is jockeying for your support can strategically bombard you with multiple messages and propaganda at virtually zero cost opposed to a network television campaign.  These messages can be crafted privately and edited until it is exactly what the poster wants it to be, opposed to a live public presentation.  Programmers such as CNN or FOX News are not going to take the content they capture and sit down in an editing station to construct a piece that suits your needs.  Many times, they are looking to exploit or spin what you have said to meet their stations political views.  With the use of self-produced media, they are able to pre-consider all of the potential pitfalls and pick their battles.

Viewers, on the other hand, see a message that feels less ceremonial and mainstream media driven.  I feel, currently, people get more of a “real life” sense from the “homemade” video then they do from a full-fledged network production.  Another huge benefit is that the viewer can access the content any time they want.

I really feel that the use of new media tools like YouTube, allows the content provider to reach and persuade a much younger generation then ever before.  This is just the beginning for the use of current mediums to be the conduit of influential messages to the masses.

If you feel that this would be a fulfilling endeavor, please contact me after class.