[Tloewald]

Twenty years ago, Nicholas Negroponte pointed out the irony that when he passed through Singapore customs, they searched his atoms but not his bits.

Is being searched before you get on a plane or enter a customs checkpoint some kind of hideous infringement of your civil liberties? No!

There’s no problem with this in principle. The problem is that it’s silly, and it causes a privacy and security violation while not accomplishing anything.

[scrollaway]

Hey Tloewald, please don't pretend to speak for everyone when you say "being searched" isn't a problem in the first place.

It's not a problem for you, fine. I'd ask you to let me search you but that'd only be to prove a point, so by all means keep accepting it. But when you say it's not a problem, you do not speak for me.

It's pointless, degrading, and above all it's sad that you and many others accept it without questioning it.

[Tloewald]

The principle here is people can agree to surrender some of their privacy for safety. The problem isn’t that searching my bits is a greater violation than searching my atoms, but that it’s not useful. Right now there’s no pattern of bits I can carry with me to blow up a plane and in any event I could easily bypass the search.

I’m not thrilled by the social contract, but it’s a good deal more convenient than driving across country.

[scrollaway]

I'll sometimes surrender some privacy for some form of safety or convenience, but that safety/convenience has to exist, not be theoretical.

Positive example: I use Google Drive. I know full well Google could read and analyze all my shit if they wanted to. I surrender to that possibility in exchange for the very cheap and convenient online storage I get.

Negative example: Fuck the TSA and all its theatrics. Those aren't useful. Please do convince me they are; I don't see anyone even trying to pretend they are.

[bambax]

> Is being searched before you get on a plane or enter a customs checkpoint some kind of hideous infringement of your civil liberties? No!

Of course it is. We're simply used to it, because we're sheep and cowards. But it is. Searching everyone, without probable cause or reasonable suspicion of anything, is a violation of civil liberties, and of basic human decency. It's also pure theater and useless.

And because we have accepted this, other privacy agressions seem justified.

[Eridrus]

It is an infringement. I certainly don't think I should have to explain everything in my bag to little hitlers.

I'm willing to entertain arguments that it is a worthwhile trade-off, but we must acknowledge that it is an infringement on everyone's rights.

Every additional infringement should come with a justification, an analysis considering whether it will be effective, and a harm minimisation strategy.

[Nursie]

Searching me for the means to harm people on the plane, bring it down etc is one thing.

Searching everything I've ever said or done online, my personal photos etc etc. is an entirely different proposition.

There are huge problems with this in principle!

[outworlder]

> Is being searched before you get on a plane or enter a customs checkpoint some kind of hideous infringement of your civil liberties? No!

No. But they are looking for items that would make the flight unsafe, as well as controlled substances.

If they are searching your bits, they are not looking for either of these things, they are looking for thought crimes. Not only now, but in your past.

There is a big difference.