How Seriously Should We Take Airport Security Boycotts?

And how prevalent will airport scanner frustration be during this travel-heavy week?

Monday, November 22, 2010

A sign at a Transportation Security Administration (TSA) checkpoint instructs passengers about the use of the full-body scanner at O'Hare International Airport on March 15, 2010 in Chicago, Illinois. (Scott Olson/Getty)

Many air travelers, both passengers and pilots, have expressed their frustration with the full body scanners and enhanced pat-downs enacted by the Transportation Security Administration earlier this month. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano say our privacy is a small sacrifice for our safety, but many people don't think this is a tradeoff they want to accept.

Some have started organizing boycotts of the new security measures for the busiest travel day of the year — Thanksgiving Eve. So we wondered ... how much havoc or delays could scanning boycotters really cause? To get some answers, we're turning to Barbara Peterson, the senior aviation correspondent at Conde Nast's Traveler magazine and Chris Yates, an aviation security consultant. We'll also hear how you, our listeners, are planning to travel this week.

Guests:

Barbara Peterson and Chris Yates

Comments [2]

Richard Jamieson from Ho-Ho-Kus NJ

It appears that every time a terrorist has a new technique to by pass security with their bombs and eventually security finds out, a new security check is imposed. Some terrist hve smuggled items in their stomach and rectum. Next time we will be given stomach pumps and laxitives. This will hold up security operations even further. Of course, some people could loose weight that way. I guess there is always a side effect.

Nov. 25 2010 01:32 AM

"Jeffrey from Michigan" said that when a person goes to the doctor then "modesty goes out the window because your life is at steak."

Mr Jeffrey from Michigan, you are assuming that there is a decent comparason here. Medical tests have inaccurate results much of the time, and a person can very well be better off staying modest since he or she is not going to benefit from believing that he or she is paying a small price of being embarrassed so that his or her life would be "saved."

Furthermore even though this is taking the issue to a different realm, it seems you are implying that just like when a person buys an airplane ticket he or she gives up his or her right to privacy and the right not to be touched, when a person goes to a doctor he or she too, gives up the right to think for him or herself and gives up the right not to be touched .

It is a strong concept sure, but there is no law that states such a
thing.A lot of people whom have been led to believe that the excessively advertized recommendations to get colonoscopies at age 50, or get prostate exams if you are a man or vaccinated against HPV if you are a young female, etc , is advice based on science that was founded according to carefully studied demographics and medical facts, and that the
persons whom did the studies were knowledgable trained objectice
individuals free of vested interests and whom have nothing to do with the
pharmaceutical industry.

Of course a lot of doctors and medical professionals want it this way so that they can order a lot of unnecessary tests and have patients go through needless exams.

However, no person gives up his or her right to refuse intrusive or
invasive medical procedures when he or she, under regular conditions, goes to
the doctor. It might be different if we are talking about a person in
jail or in the military, but If a patient did not want a doctor to touch
him/her or perform any invasive test, a doctor cannot tell some hospital
official and have the patient undergo disciplinary measures for for
non-compliance. The doctor cannot call the police and have the patient arrested
nor can a doctor have charges filed against the patient. A doctor
cannot have a patient held down and forced to undergo a prostate exam or a
pap smear or a colonoscopy. A doctor and an entire hospital in fact can
get sued for violating a patient's right not to have medical
"treatment" forced upon him or her.

Nov. 22 2010 07:20 PM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.