Government policies go to extremes, invade privacy of citizens
In the wake of 9/11, it was obvious to lawmakers and American citizens that reforms needed to be made to airport security to prevent another attack. Everyone seemed happy to take one for the team and remove their shoes before stepping through the metal detectors, or put their shampoo in travel size bottles.
We are no more at peace in the fight for safety than we were a decade ago. Whether it's from the sense of unrest that still lingers in the back of our minds or uncertainty about what precautions to take next, the world has become a paranoid place where individual liberties and privacy don't seem to matter.
In a situation that offered comedic relief in the long lines of an airport, LZ Granderson, a CNN columnist, thought it was a joke when he saw the sign at the airport that read, "Please be advised, snow globes are not allowed through the security checkpoint."
Granderson's experience in the airport brings up a valid point that many advocates of stricter security fail to realize: the inconsistencies in airport security and the taxpayer money those inconsistencies are wasting.
Realistically, a snow globe could possibly pose a danger since it is filled with liquid. But you're already being frisked and essentially undressed by advanced imaging machines to check for underwear bombs and hidden tweezers. So a "No Snow Globes" sign makes you wonder when the security hysteria got so out of control.
The terrorism paranoia isn't isolated to airports anymore, either. Recently, a man at a Scotland mall was taking pictures of his daughter eating ice cream when an overzealous mall cop threatened to confiscate his cell phone, saying that his actions were a terrorism threat. The security guard then called police, who agreed to let the man keep his cell phone only after making him give his full details — including name, place of birth, age, address and employment status. He was removed from the Braehead Shopping Center over a few pictures that he took of his 4-year-old eating ice cream, all in the interest of preventing terrorism.
As technology advances, it allows more pathways to terrorism. But how many of these precautions are actually keeping us safe, and how many are infringing on our fundamental rights to privacy?
It's easy to play the cynic and argue the fight against terrorism will never end; therefore, these provisions are necessary and just. But are these ridiculous protocols and demands in public places and airport security lines really making air and ground travel safer?
There is no definite solution to the terrorism threat constantly looming over all of us. But if government continues to invade personal space pervasive government surveillance and an Orwellian-type administration will undoubtedly evolve until we have no privacy at all.
More Like This
Column: Radicalization and extremism are not unique to Islam
By Dan Nelson | Feb. 8, 2017
Column: The importance of labeling domestic terrorism
By C. R. Jones III | Nov. 29, 2015