The bottom line is clear: The privacy battalions oppose not just particular technologies, but technological innovation itself.

Declan McCullagh points out that Heather MacDonald has also written an essay arguing that racial profiling doesn't exist. (Our society clearly has no problems with racism whatsoever, and the fact that "DWB" is now a common American expression is obviously a liberal plot that has no relationship whatsoever to people's actual experiences.)

However, I'm memeing this anyway because its important to consider opposing views.

TIA is messy. I think that we SHOULD research the question of how effective these data mining programs can be. I'm not sure I agree that TIA was that program.

MacDonald claims that privacy advocates haven't raised specific, reasonable concerns, nor offered alternatives. Neither of these arguments is true.

The problem privacy advocates have with TIA and CAPPS is that everyone is held to scrutiny, and if you fit a specific profile you are targeted for further analysis. In a free society you should not be discouraged from living a particular lifestyle because it happens to peak the interest of an analyst who is observing you at all times. There is a fundamental philosophical problem with that approach to security.

From a tactical standpoint there are specific questions that remain unanswered about who you really catch with these scans. Especially over time as you can use increased scrutiny to tell whether or not you're tagged, and if so, abort, reconfigure, and retry. Furthermore, while whether TIA was an engineering or science project is hotly debated, but CAPPS certainly wasn't/isn't.

Whats even more problematic about CAPPS is the secret no-fly lists... Secret laws seem incompatible with democracy.

What most of the privacy advocates offer as an alternative are approaches that actually make the terrorist attacks hard logistically, rather then because of ubiquitous monitoring. Consistent explosives screening of all checked luggage, re-enforced, locked cabin doors. Remote control capability for airplanes. More air-marshalls.

Of course, this is just too expensive, its less visible, it doesn't offer the added benefit of getting to run warrant checks every time someone travels, etc...

The 'Privacy' Jihad

] Congress is considering a good bipartisan compromise
] known as the SAFE Act (short for Safety and Freedom
] Ensured) that was introduced last fall by Sens. Richard
] Durbin (D-Ill.) and Larry E. Craig (R-Idaho). The
] measure, S1709, would add judicial oversight to rein in
] the FBI's overly free hand.
]
] The bill also extends the Patriot Act's sunset
] provisions, for example requiring periodic
] reconsideration of circumstances in which agents can read
] someone's e-mail or peruse their credit card purchases.
]
] In a letter last week, Ashcroft preposterously asserted
] that the SAFE Act would "make it more difficult" to stop
] terrorists "than before the Patriot Act," and said he'd
] recommend that Bush veto it. Lawmakers should ignore this
] bluster as they take modest steps to protect civil
] liberties while continuing to fight terror.

Ashcroft appears to be seriously opposed to even a moderate approach to the Patriot Act.

Safer Option for Civil Rights