West Coast Publishing Surveillance 2015 november page
TSA/Airports Case Neg AT: Aff Advantages
Download 449.23 Kb.
|
TSA/Airports Case NegAT: Aff AdvantagesAT: 4th Amendment Adv – Airport Surveillance Doesn’t ViolateAirport surveillance is a general regulation which upholds the Fourth Amendment while protecting public safetyTobias W. Mock, Technical Editor of the Santa Clara Law Review and JD Candidate at the Santa Clara University School of Law, 1-1-2009, “The TSA’s New X-Ray Vision: The Fourth Amendment Implications of Body-Scan Searches at Domestic Airport Security Checkpoints,” http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1096&context=lawreview The Fourth Amendment secures "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures."4 The reasonableness of a search is determined "by assessing, on the one hand, the degree to which [the search] intrudes upon an individual's privacy and, on the other, the degree to which it is needed for the promotion of a legitimate government interest."145 A balance between these competing interests is most commonly met where the government produces a warrant establishing probable cause. 146 In the context of airport searches, however, probable cause, or even a minimal level of individualized suspicion, does not set the constitutional floor for protection. 147 Warrantless airport searches, including mandatory magnetometer searches, are frequently justified based on their use as part of a general regulatory scheme "aimed at a group or class of people rather than a particular person."148 The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the constitutionality of these so-called "administrative searches" "where the risk of public safety is substantial and real."149 Although mandatory airport searches are routinely upheld in this manner, the predicate justifications vary between "general reasonableness," "consent," and the "stop and frisk" rationale of Terry v. Ohio.150 Airport searches pass the reasonableness testJenny Parker Smith, JD Candidate at the Texas Tech University School of Law, 2011, “Threatsense Technology: Sniffing Technology and the Threat to your Fourth Amendment Rights,” http://texastechlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/Smith.pdf "Administrative searches are not carried out to gather evidence as part of a criminal investigation."' 35 Instead, administrative searches are a part of a general regulatory scheme, meaning that each person attempting to board a plane is subject to the same treatment.'3 6 Although these searches are not subject to the warrant requirement, they must be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment to be valid.'3 ' The Ninth Circuit articulated the reasonableness test for airport administrative searches as follows: To be reasonable, a passenger "screening search must be as limited in its intrusiveness as is consistent with satisfaction of the administrative need that justifies it.," 38 In assessing reasonableness, several considerations must be made.139 First, the government must respect a passenger's right to either consent to the search or walk away and not board a plane.14 0 A second consideration is the danger involved as the reason for conducting the search in the first instance.141 The Fifth Circuit has held that "some situations present a level of danger such that the reasonableness test is per se satisfied."l 42 Where "the risk is the jeopardy to hundreds of human lives and millions of dollars of property inherent in the pirating or blowing up of a large airplane, the danger alone meets the test of reasonableness." 43 Essentially, airport searches are justified on the grounds that they are both administrative searches and generally applicable, and further, are reasonable in light of the risks presented. Airport searches are constitutional because they protect the public – Terry doctrineTobias W. Mock, Technical Editor of the Santa Clara Law Review and JD Candidate at the Santa Clara University School of Law, 1-1-2009, “The TSA’s New X-Ray Vision: The Fourth Amendment Implications of Body-Scan Searches at Domestic Airport Security Checkpoints,” http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1096&context=lawreview The Supreme Court in Terry v. Ohio held that a warrantless search by a law enforcement official is constitutional, provided that it is "strictly circumscribed by the exigencies which justify its initiation." 5' Therefore, a search for weapons by an officer who is fearful of immediate harm must be "limited to that which is necessary for the discovery of weapons . . . and may realistically be characterized as something less than a 'full' search."" 2 The Fourth Circuit applied the Terry search rationale to justify airport magnetometer searches in United States v. Epperson.153 The court concluded that the Terry exception, meant to protect "others . . . in danger," 154 extends to protection of the general public in the context of airport searches. Accordingly, the court applied the Terry balancing approach, holding that an airport search must be "justified at its inception," and "reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place." 5' Noting that magnetometer searches are minimally invasive, the court held that a slight invasion of privacy is warranted in light of the strong governmental interest in public safety." 6 Traveling in airports implies consent to searchesTobias W. Mock, Technical Editor of the Santa Clara Law Review and JD Candidate at the Santa Clara University School of Law, 1-1-2009, “The TSA’s New X-Ray Vision: The Fourth Amendment Implications of Body-Scan Searches at Domestic Airport Security Checkpoints,” http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1096&context=lawreview Under the consent doctrine, all individuals who present themselves for entry on an airplane, regardless of suspicion, are subject to a reasonable search.' 59 Therefore, consent alone, while considered as an element in favor of justifying a given search, does not satisfy the Fourth Amendment reasonableness requirement. Instead, consent-based searches require a balancing of public necessity, effectiveness, and degree of intrusion. 1 60 There is a general consensus that present-day primary search procedures, namely magnetometer searches, satisfy the consent-based balancing inquiry.' First, airport searches invoke significant public safety concerns; courts often describe the threat of airline terrorism as "unquestionably grave and urgent."'62 Second, magnetometers, at least prior to the emergence of body-scans, "have every indicia of being the most efficacious that could be used."163 Finally, courts applying the consent doctrine hold that magnetometer searches are justifiably invasive, given both the minimally invasive nature of the technology and the reduced expectation of privacy inherent in the so-called "voluntary" search.' AT: 4th Amendment – Body ScannersBody scanners are constitutional – reasonableness test, compelling security interest trumps privacy violations – prefer the most recent court rulingsAndrea M. Simbro, JD Candidate at the University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law, 2014, “The Sky’s The Limit: A Modern Approach to Airport Security,” http://www.arizonalawreview.org/pdf/56-2/56arizlrev559.pdf The D.C. Circuit held that AIT screening is a reasonable administrative search and does not violate the Fourth Amendment, because the government interest outweighs the scanners’ intrusiveness.153 The court explained that body scanners advance the acute need to ensure public safety154 because they can “detect a nonmetallic object, such as a liquid or powder—which a magnetometer cannot detect—without touching the passengers coming through the checkpoint.”155 The court emphasized that the body scanners can detect and deter nonmetallic threats.156 The court justified its decision on the grounds that passengers are not required to submit to a body scan and may opt instead for a pat-down.157 In a public statement, the TSA stated that “[p]at-downs are one important tool to help TSA detect hidden and dangerous items such as explosives.”158 The D.C. Circuit reasoned that offering pat-downs as an alternative allows passengers to decide “which of the two options for detecting a concealed, nonmetallic weapon or explosive is least invasive.”159 Given this choice, more than 99% of passengers choose to be screened by AIT technology over alternative screening procedures.160 Although there is no underlying data supporting the reasoning for this decision, passengers probably choose the body scan because it is faster161 and less aggressive than pat-downs.162 AT: 4th Amendment Adv – Luggage SniffersLuggage sniffers don’t conduct a search – don’t violate the Fourth AmendmentJenny Parker Smith, JD Candidate at the Texas Tech University School of Law, 2011, “Threatsense Technology: Sniffing Technology and the Threat to your Fourth Amendment Rights,” http://texastechlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/Smith.pdf The technology, as currently used, does not violate the Fourth Amendment insofar as it is consistent with United States v. Place and the use of canines to sniff the air around a person's luggage in a public place.2 6 The sniffing of airspace around the luggage is not a search and therefore, does not violate the Fourth Amendment. 2 6 5 There is no need to consider the reasonableness test because there is no search.26 6 AT: 14th Amendment Adv – Profiling Doesn’t ViolateProfiling is constitutional – it’s narrowly tailored and serves a compelling interestTimothy M. Ravich, Adjunct Professor of Law at the University of Miami School of Law, October 2007, “Is Airline Passenger Profiling Necessary?,” http://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1298&context=umlr Americans resisted profiling before September 11, but later welcomed it.' 89 Following the thwarted liquid-bomb plot of August 10, 2006 the Wall Street Journal appealed to common sense and criticized TSA's refusal to use religious or ethnic factors as even minor factors in screening: Nobody is suggesting using ethnicity or religion as the only-or even the primary-factors in profiling terrorists. But it also makes no sense to take zero account of the fact that every suicide attack against U.S. aviation to date has been perpetrated by men of Muslim origin. While al Qaeda is no doubt seeking recruits who don't obviously display such characteristics, that doesn't mean we should ignore the likeliest candidates. The law on this is settled, and in the other direction. On multiple occasions the federal courts have upheld programs that treat groups differently when a "compelling" public interest can be identified: affirmative action, minority set-asides, composition of Congressional districts, and the all-male draft have all met that legal test. Yet the same people who would allocate jobs, federal contracts and college admissions by race or ethnicity object to using them merely as one factor in deciding whom to inconvenience for a few minutes at an airline checkpoint. Surely aviation security is a far more compelling public interest than the allocation of federal set-asides.' 9 ° Stated another way: [T]he mathematical probability that a randomly chosen Arab passenger might attempt a mass-murder-suicide hijacking-while tiny-is considerably higher than the probability that a randomly chosen white, black, Hispanic, or Asian passenger might do the same. In constitutional-law parlance, while racial profiling may be presumptively unconstitutional, that presumption is overcome in the case of airline passengers, because the government has a compelling interest in preventing mass-murder-suicide hijackings, and because close scrutiny of Arablooking [sic] people is narrowly tailored to protect that interest. 191 AT: Econ Adv – Body ScannersCosts of attacks without body scanners outweigh economic benefits from implementing and maintaining themJessica Hoff, Managing Editor of the Michigan State Law Review and JD Candidate at the Michigan State University College of Law, 2014, “Enhancing Security While Protecting Privacy: The Rights Implicated by Supposedly Heightened Airport Security,” http://digitalcommons.law.msu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1108&context=lr As per its mandate to conduct a cost–benefit analysis, comparing the cost of the new technology to the number of lives saved,178 the TSA calculated the costs of implementing AIT from 2008 to 2011 at $841.2 million and the costs of maintaining AIT in use from 2012 to 2015 at $1.5 billion.179 While the TSA did not provide a calculation of the estimated lives saved or their value, in adopting AIT the TSA is indicating that it believes that the value of increased security outweighs the monetary cost of AIT.180 Similarly, implementing AIT and full-body pat-downs also means that the TSA believes it has satisfied the balancing test for an administrative search, which requires the invasiveness of these measures to be outweighed by the corresponding increase in security.181 Additionally, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in Electronic Privacy Information Center v. United States Department of Homeland Security agreed with the TSA that the balancing test supports the need for AIT, which the court considered more effective than WTMDs.182 AT: Health Adv – No MPXBody scanners pose no health risksAssociated Press (AP), 1-7-2010, “EU Divided on Use of Airport Body Scanners,” http://www.nbcnews.com/id/34747772/ns/travel-news/t/eu-divided-use-airport-body-scanners/#.VXzSO_lVhBc The American College of Radiology has said a passenger flying cross-country actually is exposed to more radiation from the flight at high altitude than from either of the two types of scanners the U.S. Transportation Security Administration is using — the same systems used in Europe. Neither technology poses concern for any health risks "since they don't penetrate into the body," said James Hevezi, head of the radiology group's medical physics commission and physics chief at Cyberknife Center of Miami, a cancer treatment center. AT: Health Adv – Backscatter – No MPXNo health impacts – safety guidelines solve and tons of alt causes to radiation – multiple independent studies confirmOffice of Health Affairs, Department of Homeland Security, no date, “Fact Sheet: Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) Health & Safety,” http://www.tsa.gov/sites/default/files/assets/pdf/ait_fact_sheet.pdf Some news reports have raised questions about backscatter x-ray safety. The x-ray dose produced by backscatter systems is extremely low (less than 0.10 microsievert (10 microrem)). An airline passenger that has been screened receives an equivalent dose of radiation from less than two minutes of flight at altitude. Furthermore, naturally occurring ionizing radiation is all around us. We are continuously exposed to this background radiation. In 17 minutes of ordinary living, a person receives more radiation from naturally occurring sources than from one scan. Backscatter safety standards Backscatter systems must conform to ANSI/HPS N43.17, a consensus radiation safety standard that applies to the manufacture and operation of security screening systems intended to expose people to ionizing radiation. This standard provides radiation safety guidelines for the design and operation of these systems and limits the annual effective dose to individuals that are screened. The annual limit is based on recommendations for dose limits for the general public published by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP).2 The dose limits were set with the understanding that the general public includes individuals who may be more susceptible to radiation-induced health effects, such as pregnant women, children, and persons receiving radiation treatment for medical conditions. Backscatter systems have been independently evaluated by the following: Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH); National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) on behalf of TSA; and Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (APL). All results consistently confirm that radiation doses are well below the limits specified by the standard established by the American National Standards Institute and through the Health Physics Society (ANSI/HPS) – ANSI/HPS N43.17-2009 Radiation Safety for Personnel Security Screening Systems Using X-ray or Gamma Radiation. You would have to get scanned forty times a day to be harmedGregory S. McNeal, Associate Professor of Law and Associate Professor of Public Policy at the Pepperdine University School of Law, 1-1-2013, “Security Scanners in Comparative Perspective,” http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Security+scanners+in+comparative+perspective.-a0342319927 3) The X-ray backscatter system (80) uses ionizing radiation and as such, is subject to the dose limits established by Euratom. (81) Although security scanners will expose passengers to ionizing radiation, the dose is low. The EC concluded that it would take approximately forty screenings per day for a passenger to reach the dose limit provided by Euratom. (82) Radiation doses are too low to be harmfulNew York Times (NYT), 2-23-2007, “New Airport X-Rays Scan Bodies, Not Just Bags,” http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/24/us/24scan.html While security agency officials say the machines, known as SmartCheck, pose no health hazards, some experts disagree. The machine, manufactured by American Science and Engineering Inc. of Billerica, Mass., generates about as much radiation as a passenger would get flying for about two minutes at about 30,000 feet, or in technical terms, fewer than 10 microRem per scan, according to security agency and company officials. The machine is already being used in some prisons, by United States customs and at Heathrow Airport in London. Dr. Albert J. Fornace Jr., an expert in molecular oncology at Georgetown University Medical Center, said such a low dose was inconsequential, even for pregnant women. “Obviously, no radiation is even better than even a very low level,” Dr. Fornace said. “But this is trivial.” Backscatter machines are safeBootie Cosgrove-Mather, writer at the Associated Press, 6-26-2003, “Feds Want See-Through Security,” http://www.cbsnews.com/news/feds-want-see-through-security/ The technology is called "backscatter" because it scatters X-rays. Doses of rays deflected off dense materials such as metal or plastic produce a darker image than those deflected off skin. The radiation dosage is about the same as sunshine, Hallowell said. AT: Health Adv – Millimeter Wave – No MPXMillimeter wave machines are safe – true for both passive and active systemsGregory S. McNeal, Associate Professor of Law and Associate Professor of Public Policy at the Pepperdine University School of Law, 1-1-2013, “Security Scanners in Comparative Perspective,” http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Security+scanners+in+comparative+perspective.-a0342319927 (1) The passive millimeter-wave imaging system does not emit any radiation. (76) It measures thermal radiation emitted by the body and the environment. Since this system does not emit any radiation dose, studies have concluded that it does not raise health concerns. (77) (2) The active millimeter-wave imaging system uses non-ionizing radiation, which is generally considered less harmful than ionizing radiation (used in X-ray systems). (78) While there is some radiation exposure, studies have suggested that the levels are equal to or less than "exposure levels arising from natural and everyday activities (e.g., mobile phones and microwaves)." (79) No radiation risks from millimeter wave machinesOffice of Health Affairs, Department of Homeland Security, no date, “Fact Sheet: Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) Health & Safety,” http://www.tsa.gov/sites/default/files/assets/pdf/ait_fact_sheet.pdf Millimeter wave AIT uses non-ionizing radio frequency energy in the millimeter wave spectrum to generate a three-dimensional image of the body based on the energy reflected from the body. The image, which resembles a fuzzy photo negative with facial features blurred for privacy, is displayed on a remote monitor for analysis to determine whether potential threats are present. The energy projected by millimeter wave technology is thousands of times less than a cell phone transmission. AT: Privacy/Civil Liberties Adv – TSA SolvesTSA has robust protections for civil libertiesYevgenia S. Kleiner, Articles Editor of the Boston College Third World Law Journal, 11-1-2010, “Racial Profiling in the Name of National Security: Protecting Minority Travlers' Civil Liberties in the Age of Terrorism,” http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=twlj No doubt in part to assuage fears that such “flexible, mobile and unpredictable” measures risk jeopardizing travelers’ civil liberties, the TSA formed an Office of Civil Rights and Liberties and charged the External Compliance Division (“the Division”) with ensuring that “the civil rights and liberties of the traveling public are respected throughout screening processes, without compromising security.”102 Among its several responsibilities, the Division provides “civil rights guidance and services to TSA program offices, including security offices, technology offices, and communications offices.”103 The Division is also responsible for reviewing TSA policies and procedures “to ensure that the civil rights and liberties of the traveling public are taken into account.”104 Additionally, the TSA issued a civil rights policy statement asserting the organization’s vision of excellence in transportation security.105 In the civil rights policy statement, the TSA pledges that “[w]ith this vision, comes a commitment that all TSA employees and the public we serve are to be treated in a fair, lawful, and nondiscriminatory manner.”106 AT: Privacy Adv – AT: Body ScannersTSA safeguards solve privacy concerns and other procedures are more invasiveWill Saletan, writes on politics, science, and technology at Slate, 4-8-2009, “Deeper Digital Penetration,” http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2009/04/deeper_digital_penetration.single.html When the scanners first appeared, I endorsed them. When they were upgraded to millimeter-wave technology, I endorsed them again. I gave two reasons. One reason was that a scan was less invasive than a pat-down. The other reason was that TSA promised to blur your face and keep your scan private, so that nobody would ever connect your name to your revealed body. That, I argued, was a sufficient kind of privacy in the age of terrorism. Body scanners are net better for privacy – they replace strip searches, which are worseWill Saletan, writes on politics, science, and technology at Slate, 3-3-2007, “Digital Penetration,” http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2007/03/digital_penetration.single.html The main stumbling block has been privacy. The ACLU and the Electronic Privacy Information Center have fought backscatters at every turn, calling them a "virtual strip search." It's a curious phrase. The purpose of a strip-search is the search. Stripping is just a means. Virtual inspections achieve the same end by other means. They don't extend the practice of strip-searching. They abolish it. When the manufacturer of the backscatter machines, American Science & Engineering, introduced the technology in prisons nine years ago, the whole point was to replace strip searches. "The scan requires no physical contact between the operator and the subject, thus vastly reducing the threat of assault against law enforcement personnel and the spread of communicable diseases," the company argued. The rationale, like the machine, conveyed not an ounce of human warmth, which is why the inmates preferred it. Better to be seen than touched. Better to be depersonalized than degraded. TSA safeguards solve privacy concernsTobias W. Mock, Technical Editor of the Santa Clara Law Review and JD Candidate at the Santa Clara University School of Law, 1-1-2009, “The TSA’s New X-Ray Vision: The Fourth Amendment Implications of Body-Scan Searches at Domestic Airport Security Checkpoints,” http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1096&context=lawreview The TSA has taken steps to remedy some of these concerns. First, manufacturers now integrate software systems into the machines that distort the images they produce. 133 The result is an image of the human form that blurs many intimate details of the body, including the face, but that retains some ability to display concealed items. 34 Described as a "chalk outline of a person," the image generated by the masking software sacrifices a degree of detection capability, as the blurred images "start to lose the ability to [detect] ... C4" explosives.13 Second, the TSA has guaranteed that the officer viewing station will be remotely located. 136 The officer attending the passenger will not view the images and the remotely located officer will not be able to associate the image with the person being screened. 137 The remote screening officer will also be the same sex as the passenger.' 38 Third, the manufacturer contends that it is not possible for the screening officer to save, transmit, print, or otherwise store the images. 39 All images are immediately and automatically deleted from the system after viewing. 140 The TSA has stood confidently behind these measures as adequate remedies to the privacy concerns posed by bodyscanning devices.' In fact, the TSA stated that the machines could replace walk-through magnetometers and become a primary search mechanism in the near future. 142 However, privacy groups remain skeptical and continue to warn of the possibility of "widespread use-and abuse" of the technology. Public consensus goes our way – body scans are less invasiveTobias W. Mock, Technical Editor of the Santa Clara Law Review and JD Candidate at the Santa Clara University School of Law, 1-1-2009, “The TSA’s New X-Ray Vision: The Fourth Amendment Implications of Body-Scan Searches at Domestic Airport Security Checkpoints,” http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1096&context=lawreview Finally, the fact that body-scans do not require human contact appears to significantly mitigate the public's concern regarding the invasiveness of the search. While operating the pilot program in Phoenix, the TSA reports that ninety percent of individuals subject to a secondary search opted in favor of a body-scan over a pat-down.256 Assuming that the passengers' consent is informed (in that they know what a body-scan entails), the overwhelming passenger preference for bodyscans is an indication that physical pat-down searches are more invasive than remotely located imaging. AT: Privacy Adv – AT: Pat-DownsThe TSA is moving to replace pat-down searches in response to privacy complaintsTobias W. Mock, Technical Editor of the Santa Clara Law Review and JD Candidate at the Santa Clara University School of Law, 1-1-2009, “The TSA’s New X-Ray Vision: The Fourth Amendment Implications of Body-Scan Searches at Domestic Airport Security Checkpoints,” http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1096&context=lawreview While in recent years the TSA has slightly scaled back pat-down searches,69 many travelers continue to describe the searches as invasive and humiliating. ° In response to hundreds of reported complaints from passengers, the TSA is currently developing potentially less-intrusive technologies and procedures to replace pat-downs.71 AT: Profiling Bad Adv – GeneralSafeguards check the worst impactsPeter H. Schuck, Simeon E. Baldwin Professor at Yale Law School, 1-27-2002, “A Case for Profiling,” http://www.law.yale.edu/news/3341.htm A sensible profiling policy will also recognize that safeguards become more essential as the enforcement process progresses. Stereotypes that are reasonable at the stage of deciding whom to screen for questioning may be unacceptable at the later stages of arrest and prosecution, when official decisions should be based on more individualized information and when lawyers and other procedural safeguards can be made available. Screening officials can be taught about the many exceptions to even serviceable stereotypes, to recognize them when they appear, and to behave in ways that encourage those being screened not to take it personally. AT: Profiling Bad Adv – Alt CausesTons of alt causes to profilingTimothy M. Ravich, Adjunct Professor of Law at the University of Miami School of Law, October 2007, “Is Airline Passenger Profiling Necessary?,” http://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1298&context=umlr Inarguably, profiling requires discrimination. Both "profiling" and "discrimination" have acquired strong negative connotations. 175 Yet, profiling and discrimination are common, lawful features of economic life in America today because of the commoditization of personal information. 176 Banks and supermarkets have long used profiling as marketing and strategic planning tools.177 Businesses today segment their customers on the basis of buying habits and patterns, where repeat customers earn benefits such as gift cards or giveaways. Airlines certainly profile and categorize their customers through computer reservation and yield management systems, along with frequent flyer reward programs. 78 In state and federal courts across the nation, lawyers profile potential jurors during voir dire and doing so is an important part of the judicial process. Of course, lawyers may only profile potential jurors on the condition they do not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or economic status.17 9 In the marketplace and in the courtroom, then, profiling can be rational conduct, and discrimination can entail nothing more than differentiating individuals on permissible grounds for appropriate ends. AT: Racism Adv – Body ScannersBody scanners solve racial profiling – x-ray images cannot be used to identify racial characteristicsWill Saletan, writes on politics, science, and technology at Slate, 3-3-2007, “Digital Penetration,” http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2007/03/digital_penetration.single.html The impersonality of machines can also filter out racism. Five years ago, the ACLU objected to body scans because they were administered selectively, "based on profiles that are racially discriminatory." But the best way to remove selection bias is to scan everyone. In Phoenix, TSA has put the backscatter monitors in a sealed room 50 feet from the security checkpoint, so the officers who staff them can't see you. All they can see are X-ray images, which capture density, not pigment. To them, everyone is the same color. AT: Racism Adv – Profiling – AT: Black Policing ParallelsProfiling in airports is distinct from bad policing practicesStuart Taylor Jr., JD from Harvard Law School and writer at numerous publications focusing on legal and policy issues, 3-1-2002, “The Skies Won’t Be Safe Until We Use Commonsense Profiling,” http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2002/03/the-skies-wont-be-safe-until-we-use-commonsense-profiling/378065/ While the politically correct approach to profiling still seems to be an article of faith in many quarters, some liberals (along with many conservatives) are talking sense. One is Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., perhaps the smartest civil libertarian in Congress. During a March 6 debate at Georgetown University Law Center, Frank forthrightly asserted that airline security profiles should take account of national origin. He cautioned that a well-designed profile would also include "a bunch of factors" that may warrant suspicion; that "if only ... young men from the Middle East were being profiled, it would be a problem"; and that the ideal system would be to search all passengers and their luggage thoroughly for bombs and other weapons. But Frank also stressed: "I do think that at this point, [national] origin would be part of it.... In certain countries, people are angrier at us than elsewhere." Frank distinguished such airport profiling from the discredited police practice of "pulling over some black kid because he's driving," to search for drugs, which he called "a terrible intrusion." In airport screening, Frank said, the stakes are much higher—with many lives at risk if a bomb or weapon slips through—and the "incremental" intrusion on those profiled is minimal. "If no harm is being done, and you're not being in any way disadvantaged, I am reluctant to think that there's any great problem," he said. Directory: documents documents -> Concept stage documents -> Concept stage documents -> The great global switch-off documents -> Nonprofit grant application documents -> The Truth about the Rwandan Genocide documents -> Annual InStructional unit plan documents -> Chaos equipment included Download 449.23 Kb. Share with your friends:
|