TSA and Book Searches

I try very hard not to get political online, but the latest in Security Theater has me shaking my head.

TSA is now searching passengers' books and magazines in their carry-on bags.

I've had a problem with some of their policies over the last sixteen years. I have a rather large, ahem, bosom. I wear underwire bras for the extra support. Coming home from my grandfather's funeral in 2002, a TSA agent became a little too interested in checking my boobs.

I finally said, "Would you like me to take off my bra so you can check the underwires?"

She turned pink and shook her head.

"No, really. We all watched Flashdance growing up. It's not a problem." I deliberately gave her an evil grin and reach for my t-shirt sleeve.

Her skin goes from pink to beet-red. "That won't be necessary, ma'am." But she stopped feeling me up.

Then there's the over-the-top abuses like dumping a urine bag on a passenger with catheter. My heart goes out to anyone with real medical devices.

But since the last presidential election, TSA has gotten a lot more invasive. It's not just a matter of turning on your electronic devices to prove they aren't bombs. They insist on passengers turning over their social media accounts and passwords so they can examine the apps.

People have been reported for suspected terrorist activity for simply speaking their native language for wearing their native dress.

And now, the TSA (aka the government) wants to know what you read.

Here's my problem--there's no context.

I could have a copy of the Quran because I'm taking a comparative religion class. I could have one of Alter Ego's erotica books because I'm proofing it on my trip. Or maybe I have a copy of Stephen King or J.K. Rowling, and some official gets a bug up their ass because both authors have been outspoken in their criticism of the current administration.

This coupled with some of the administration's other actions scare me. Inherent in the First Amendment is the right to read what you want. What happens when the TSA starts banning certain books?

Oh, when the ban comes, they'll claim it's a safety measure, but where does it stop?

I say this as someone who worked in a bookstore a couple of decades ago. Invariably once a week or so, some customer berated me or one of my co-workers for carrying X. My favorite incident was when I was ringing up a young man who was buying Mein Kampf.

The only other customer in the store besides him marched up to the cash/wrap and started chewing me out for selling the book to the young man. My response? "I'd rather have him read it and discover for himself that Hitler is crazy."

Her eyes got huge, and she sputtered a few unintelligible words before she threw down her romance books on the counter and marched out of the store.

I then had an interesting conversation with the young gentleman. He was working on his master's thesis in marketing. The subject was how modern advertising firms use the same techniques that the Nazis did in the '30's.

So how does this tie in with the TSA situation?

Fear.

Yeah, I know that seems to be the theme this week. But instead allowing your own fear to control you, this is letting other people's fear to control you. You need to educate yourself about real risks and dangers, and not let others' paranoia affect you.

Because if someone is trying to influence you through fear, it's rarely for your benefit.

Hatred on the Internet

Invariably, someone will feel they need to argue, so I'm going to close comments on this post. The fact I feel the need to close comments says how bad the problem has become.

The hate is strong in the world these days. It's not just things like the burning of African-American churches across the U.S. or slut shaming of underage rape victims or harassment of members of the LGBT community. It's gotten to the point I don't read comments on my favorite sites. It's gotten to the point I've blocked several friends on FB. It's gotten to the point I don't even get on Twitter anymore.

There is very little compassion or empathy on the internet. There's been several studies including one published in Psychology Today. And if you look at the comments, well, the trolls kind of proved the author's point.

There's irony inherent in a system that can bring people together from around the world can also be used to divide us. People like Dylann Roof allegedly not only told friends about his intentions to kill blacks, but proclaimed his intentions on his Facebook page and his own website. What makes his threats valid and another person's nothing more than blowing off steam online, other than the fact Dylann allegedly carried out his plan?

I think the fact we don't know which is which online makes the problem more troubling. A friend shared a post online about rape vs. consent only to have a male she considered a friend PM her with a sexist joke. When she called him on it, he didn't apologize. Instead, he doubled-down, claimed she was being too sensitive, women like being sexually harassed if the harassee is good-looking, etc.

So how do we as a multi-cultural world deal with someone else's anger? How do we help these people to change their behavior into something positive?

The problem is we can't. Sometimes the beliefs are so hardcore, so ingrained, that to give these people an alternative sends them into an emotional tailspin.

Then there are the trolls who enjoy inflicting pain.

So how do you respond when you're not sure which party you're dealing with? I wish I had the answer to that.

If you respond to a troll, you're only helping him jack off. If you allow the hatred to permeate without a response, then folks on the edge start to think this behavior is acceptable.

The best thing that can happen is that the owner of the site monitors comments. That the owner explicitly states the comment policy. By having a website open to public comment, we are responsible for the level of discourse.

I've had people get mad about some of the things I post here. I've had people get mad when I've called them out for some of the things they've said in comments. I've had people get pissed because I deleted their comment. So be it.

The comment policy here is that you need to be civil, and yes, since WWW is under my control, then my judgment on what is civil rules.

This isn't a First Amendment issue. This is what my parents and grandparents called "using your company manners." If you can't behave in any public venue, maybe you shouldn't venture into that space.

First Amendment Vs. Privacy

Currently reading - Kitty Raises Hell by Carrie Vaughn

Nathan Bransford's This Week in Publishing pointed to an interesting article in the NY Times about whether or not bloggers should do away with anonymous comments. This gist of the article was the rash of incendiary, crude comments on news organizations' blogs.

I'll be the first to admit there are times when anonymous comments can yield valuable information without jeopardizing the anonmyous commenter's livelihood. But many sites have turned into out-and-out brawls. Recently, several agents, such as Generous Janet Reid turned on moderation because of the crap being spewed on her blog's comments.

That's one reason I post comments under my own name. If I don't have the balls or the tact to stand by what I said, then I shouldn't be posting, should I?

But the issue is moving into a whole 'nother arena than good manners.

Yes, the First Amendment guarantees the right to free speech, but only in a public area (and even then there are limits, like not shouting "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater). Guess what? The internet isn't a public place.

I can hear those shocked gasps, but it's true, Virginia. The internet is, for all intents and purposes, a private place owned by private citizens, just like a store, which invites citizens to visit. If you run into Wal-Mart and start screaming obscenities, they can throw you out. The store is on private, not public, property.

Do we treat the internet as a public place? Sure. Just like when I meet with my critique group in a local eatery, we talk about anything and everything under the sun. Could we have been thrown out if someone had seen what was in the purple box I gave Jody? Yep, the staff had every right to remove us. Part of the privilege of remaining is acting in a reasonable manner.

On the other hand, why do we expect privacy when we tell the world everything? Christie blogged about the purple box incident, so now all six and a half billion people on earth know (theoretically anyways).

Oh hell, I know more about people's personal lives than I care to just sitting at my local coffee shop. Yes, blond buffant lady, I'm talking about you. I really didn't want to know about your son-in-law's ED, how you'd just die if your daughter adopted one of those little Haitian babies, and how it (melodramatically) destroys any chance you'll ever have of grandchildren.

Now, if I know all of this by listening to some middle-aged chick talking way too loudly on her cell, imagine what I know about the rest of you.

Heh, heh, heh.