Massachusetts Daily Collegian

A free and responsible press serving the UMass community since 1890

A free and responsible press serving the UMass community since 1890

Massachusetts Daily Collegian

A free and responsible press serving the UMass community since 1890

Massachusetts Daily Collegian

How secure is your package?

Pat downs. Body scanners. Metal detectors. Cameras. What do all of these have in common? America’s safety. The real question, then, is how do we strike the balance between protecting the lives of innocent travelers and not infringing on peoples’ privacy?

Since I was a child, I always remembered going through metal detectors at airports and sending my bags through the X-ray machine. I figured it was normal; it made sense to me. Besides, I’d rather have my flight disturbed by a crying baby than a disturbed traveler with a bomb. What didn’t make sense to me was that, when TSA officials “screened” our baggage, they never actually looked at the X-rays; they were always talking among themselves. That was something I had a problem with.

After 9/11, I expected even more security at airports, but I still don’t feel any safer in airports or on planes. When the body scanners were introduced, the first thing which came to my mind was not the massive invasion of privacy, but how much longer lines would be.

All of a sudden, politicians and travelers were up in arms about this invasive technology. Ron Paul calls them “porno-scanners.” But how do other countries handle homeland security?

Like Europe, Israel takes security very seriously – some would argue too seriously. Security officers interview every single airplane passenger. X-ray machines the size of a mini-SUV check every single bag. Even the people behind the ticket desk ask security related questions. But it doesn’t stop in the airport.

Every major mall has a security officer who checks bags and purses. It only takes ten seconds, but the security is still there. Regardless, I’m not sure this would make me feel any safer. On the one hand, knowing everyone gets the same treatment flushes out potential terrorists, but the simple presence of police also makes me feel nervous they are anticipating something.

However, it would be impossible to impose this type of security in America due to the sheer size of this country. It takes six hours to go from the south to the north of Israel; it takes a few days here. We also have millions more travelers than Israel, which also means more chances for terrorists to hide in the crowd.

But at what cost are we trying to protect ourselves? We obviously cannot go back to the time when there was no security and anyone could just buy a ticket at the gate. Yet going in the opposite direction creates an atmosphere of discomfort for some travelers. The reality is that certain organizations are trying to destroy us. Not just America, but any country or people which opposes these groups’ fanatical ideologies.

These extremists are not all hiding in caves in the Middle East; there are homegrown terrorists here, and they are not all Muslim. Timothy McVeigh could have gotten on a plane and flown it into a building if he had wanted to. More recently, Joseph Stack flew a small plane into an IRS building.

The security measures the TSA is putting into place are there to prevent those who plan to carry out terror plots using various transportation methods. Is a pat down by someone you will never see again worth the outrage, considering the damage other people can do? I’m not the biggest fan of my body, but I don’t think officers checking the body scans are uploading the images onto Facebook. If they are doing their job, they won’t be checking out your package, but will be looking for an AK-47 or a bomb.

If there were no threats facing us, there would be no point in having security. If we went by the better and more comforting “honor system,” terrorists would just take advantage of it.

 We all know it is uncomfortable going through security, but does anyone think TSA officers actually enjoy touching travelers? I think not. But until we figure out a secure way of decoding terrorist plans and finding their planners, I’m going to stick with whatever security Logan, Kennedy, or Hartsfield has to offer, however uncomfortable it may be.

 Roy Ribitzky is a Collegian columnist. He can be reached at [email protected].

View Comments (1)
More to Discover

Comments (1)

All Massachusetts Daily Collegian Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • C

    Clifton Carl Jr.Nov 22, 2010 at 1:50 am

    “We obviously cannot go back to the time when there was no security and anyone could just buy a ticket at the gate.” True, and I’m all for reasonable searches, but the situation today resembles an undeclared ‘state of emergency.’ The kind we saw throughout the twentieth century, most regrettably in 1930’s Germany. I don’t mean to disparage TSA by noting that fact. It was Congress who mandated 100% safety or bust following 9/11. But because of that TSA wants to grope me.

    What is yours that is protected by the fourth amendment – or any one of your freedoms protected by the bill of rights, things that have always been YOURS, apparently aren’t precious to you. I can recognize how you don’t understand why “don’t touch my junk” is so similar in feeling to “give me liberty or give me death.” That “I decide who gropes me” is a legitimate stand.

    I recognise that many travelers don’t see it that way. I would suggest that the reason many are unwilling to accept risk in this particular area is that many of methods that we use to mitigate risk are taken away or not available when we travel by air. This creates helplessness as we really want to be secure but the only options that remain, because they are the only ones allowed, is to let someone else do it. The lashing out against those that are willing to assume the risk, is a sign of that helplessness.

    When we fly we surrender complete control of the means of travel to the pilot, when we drive or walk we can control that. We have no control over the rigidity of the schedule, or the option available when the schedules must change. We have no control over whether we can take alternate routes to avoid bad weather. We have little control over the provisions we can have in our immediate possessions. We can not take water unless we buy it at exorbitant prices. We are prevented from having even rudimentary devices to protect us from personal attack, as unlikely as it would be that we would need them we are still more comfortable if we have them. We are unsure of the maintenance of the aircraft. We know when the oil was changed in our car. On most airlines, we cannot control who we sit by unless we are in a group. we have to take whatever seat mate the airline has assigned. We have to surrender control of many of our needed possessions in our luggage to unknown people in several cities and trust them to get those possessions back to us.

    The process of traveling by air can be confusing and frustrating and is often a fearful event. It is a natural reaction for you to seek the security you cannot provide for yourself in a trusted authority. You have been stripped of almost all of the self preservation techniques at your disposal and feel vulnerable. You want to know you are secure, because you NEED to know that you are secure.

    700 million passengers travel by air every year. The cold hard truth is that even if terrorists took down a plane every week for a year (we know the government would never let that come about) it would still be much much riskier to travel by automobile.

    Why are you are so willing to give away something precious that is yours, to get nearly nothing in return?

    Reply