The “Dangers” of Travel – Liquids, Scanners, Pat-Downs, and Planes
It’s all over the news these days: Americans are up in arms about the security crackdown at airports, involving extremely invasive body scanners (aka “porno scans”) and, failing that, full-body “pat-downs” that make even the most unabashed blush. Shouts of “If you touch my junk, I’ll have you arrested” abound. Everyone and their dog south of the border seems to be weighing in on the issue, so I thought that I would as well, for the sake of “Canadian Content”.
True, this is not quintessential Burnt-out Traveller discourse. My blog is not typically a forum for social and political commentary, nor a place where one vents his or her anxieties with the status quo. Nonetheless, this issue is very relevant to burnt-out travellers everywhere. Why? Because these security measures, just the latest in a long line of reactionary protocols, strive to circumvent the relaxing and rejuvenating aspects of travel that I espouse amongst burnt-out souls everywhere.
For most, the duress caused by the inevitable and constant lines, violations of personal privacy (and arguably civil rights), and fears of a potential health hazard is far more significant than that resulting from the fear of being on a plane that is hijacked, especially since the chances of that happening are so remote. Depending on the variables of the equation (and the numbers do vary), your chances of being hijacked are between 10-19 million to 1! To put that number into perspective, you are more likely to be sainted by the Catholic Church, and far, far more likely die on the way to the airport. The chance of dying from heart disease in Canada is better than 1 in 4 (see link #1 below)! Perhaps we should be rethinking our fears.
“But,” some (especially the Authorities) will sternly argue, “these security measures are preventing the hijacking of planes.” I beg to differ, and I implore travellers not to simply believe what our governments are telling us, but to actually think about it. These protocols are reactionary, and are simply meant to give us a false sense of security.
Take, for example, the reaction to the failed 2006 liquid bombing, which restricted our carry-on allowance for liquids to individual containers of less than 100mL. First off, was the decision on 100mL simply an arbitrary one? Second, what is the difference between 90mL of a substance and 110mL? Will those extra 20mL mean the difference between an explosion that cripples a plane and one that is innocuous? Authorities, such as the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, are quick to post the regulations, but never seem to actually specify the supposed reasoning behind them (see link #2). Regardless, one could, if one wanted, simply subvert the supposed reasoning behind that decision by taking 2 (or 3, or 4) separate containers with the substance and combining them on board. Or, a group of “terrorists” could conceivably each bring 100mL of the substance on board with the same effect. Basic logic, not the stuff of genius.
To add insult to injury, a representative of a British firm that actually manufactures the scanners is on record saying that it is quite unlikely that the scanners would actually detect many of the explosives used by “terrorists”, including both those of the 2006 liquid bombers and the 2009 Christmas bomber (see link #3).
The bottom line: if someone really wanted to take a plane down, they could fairly easily find a way to supplant any of the existing security measures. Someone has already invented “scan-proof undies”, though I cannot imagine authorities condoning these given the exploits of the “Christmas bomber” (see link #4). For the most part, those measures simply exist to make us feel safe. The reality is that every time we make the decision to get on a plane, we are taking a risk (however small) that it may go down. Thankfully, as I mentioned, that risk is infinitesimally smaller than most that we take in or everyday lives.
Concomitant to the logical arguments that completely refute the necessity for these security measures is the fact that our governments (specifically the Canadian and American ones) have not even been truthful with us about some fundamental factors regarding the body scanners. Curious, I don’t hear any gasps of surprise.
First, there are some health concerns, specifically radiological, since about half of the devices in use in the USA right now (those using backscatter technology) use ionizing radiation. The US Transport Security Administration stated that the amount of radiation emitted from one use is completely negligible, equating about 1/1000 of an invasive chest x-ray. However, some scientists assert that although the dosage is low, it is much higher than the TSA claims. They add that frequent use could actually lead to health concerns (including skin and other cancers), especially for frequent fliers, pilots, and children, since young people are more sensitive to radiation (see link #5).
Second, the US and Canadian governments have stated that the scanners cut down on security times, and the TSA has even said that the scans take 20-40 seconds as opposed to 2-4 minutes for “pat-downs”. If that is true, it is in curious contradiction to the Italian decision in September to stop using the scanners completely. Vito Riggio, the president of Italy’s aviation authority, found that Italian authorities “didn’t get good results from body scanners during testing”, and actually found that the scanners took longer to examine a person than the manual “pat-down” procedure (see link #6). Couple that with the fact that the American scanners, at least, were a product of the stimulus spending bill, and it’s not hard to discern a bit of a conflict of interest on the part of the US Government.
Third, as we all know, the images taken by the scanners are graphic, depicting us in an essentially naked state. If you have yet to see an example, just google “airport body scan images”, and make sure your kids are out of the room. This is an issue in and of itself for most people, and the weak justification that the security employees are viewing the images in a separate room does little to help ease tension. The Canadian and American governments have repeatedly sworn that our images will not be saved. However, in at least one incident so far a US federal government agency has, with likely illegality, stored thousands of images, some of which have been leaked and can be found all over the internet (see link #7). Given such incidents, how can we be certain that our Canadian security officials (or their American counterparts if we travel there) are staying true to their word?
Finally, decisions on the screening process here in Canada simply defy logic, and perhaps civil rights. People will be singled out by an “airport watch system” to identify “suspicious passengers” for screening in the scanners. So, what are the criteria? Is this not the basis of profiling, racial or otherwise? If I have long shaggy hair, brown skin, a headdress, or a behavioural condition that causes me to act “suspiciously”, will I be targeted? Furthermore, apparently people under the age of 18 will not be scanned. Do those making the decisions seriously think that “terrorists” are all at or above the legal voting age? Ridiculous.
As I mentioned at the beginning of the article, the Americans have sparked a high-profile dialogue on this issue. I wonder, why have we Canadians not followed suit, as we usually do when it comes to American policy? Why aren’t we fighting for our own constitutional rights and speaking out on this issue, either for or against it? Has everyone forgotten the fact that at the beginning of 2010 our Conservative Government fairly quietly implemented a policy of using body scanners in several Canadian airports (see link #8)? Sure, we have a reputation of being “nice” and “non-confrontational”. However, a problem arises when the line between “non-confrontational” and “complacent” becomes blurred.
A certain group of Americans has, via the internet, now organized a national protest for the upcoming Wednesday, November 24th, expeditiously entitled “National Opt-Out Day”, where they hope to disrupt the one of the busiest travel days of the year by encouraging passengers to refuse a body scan and necessitate a “pat-down” (see link #9).
Government officials argue that it will only disrupt peoples’ attempts to get home to see their loved ones: a tired, typically institutional response and attempt to appeal to emotion to curtail a threat to their authority (and possibly a lie, given the Italian findings). Alas, sometimes exercising our constitutional right to protest does cause some inconvenience. But, if the Suffragette’s didn’t delay daily life by blocking the streets, damaging property and chaining themselves to railings, would women have ever won the right to vote?
I am not proposing that we Canadians take to the streets in protest, or even that we disrupt airport traffic just yet. Such is not the purview or the purpose of the Burnt-out Traveller. Rather, I simply posit that perhaps we should develop a dialogue on this issue in our own country.
Happy Travels!
The Burnt-out Traveller
#1 – http://www.heartandstroke.com/site/c.ikIQLcMWJtE/b.3483991/k.34A8/Statistics.htm
#2 - http://www.catsa-acsta.gc.ca/page.aspx?id=72&pname=LiquidsAerosolsGels_LiquidesAerosolsGels&lang=en
#3 – http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8439285.stm
#4 – http://www.canada.com/entertainment/Scanner+proof+undies+keep+passenger+secrets/3870881/story.html
#5 – http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/11/12/body.scanning.radiation/
#6 – http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-news/italy-to-abandon-airport-body-scanners-20100924-15pgu.html
#8 – http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/01/05/security-canada-us-airport.html
#9 – http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/cbc-article.aspx?cp-documentid=26386340
burntouttraveller
How long does it take to travel by boat across the Atlantic?
But i guess it wouldnt be a viable option for many. It is probably expensive, and wouldnt work for business etc.