So I’m reading this New York Time editorial and at first, everything seems pretty sensible:
In a directive whose logic is not always apparent, the Transportation Security Administration has spelled out what airline passengers can carry on board with them, what must be placed in checked luggage, and what can’t go on the plane at all. Knives must be checked but knitting needles and corkscrews are allowed in the cabin. Up to four ounces of eye drops can be carried aboard, with fingers crossed that multiple terrorists won’t combine their allotments to exceed the limit. Laptops, digital cameras, mobile phones and other electronic devices are permitted, so never mind any warnings you’ve heard that they could be used to trigger a bomb. The bomb ingredients themselves, notably liquid explosives, will be kept out of the cabin by a ban on liquids, gels and lotions, except for small amounts of baby formula and medications.
Perhaps the Times will be a voice of reason in an hysterical debate, pointing out the absurdity of trying to ban everything that might conceivably be dangerous?
Not a chance.
The ban on liquids surely makes sense given the lack of a reliable, efficient way to detect liquid explosives on the passenger screening line. But the other fine distinctions in this directive make us think the best approach would be a ban on virtually all carry-on items, or at least a limit of one small personal bag per passenger to tote travel documents, keys, vital medications, reading materials and any other minimal items that are allowed.
Yeah, but wouldn’t that be horribly inconvenient for travelers?
When we raised the possibility of a ban on most carry-on items a month ago, there was a chorus of complaints from travelers who count on using their laptops during the flight; or fear that valuable electronic devices might be lost, broken or stolen if checked; or resent long waits after a flight to get their checked bags. Some travelers have already shifted to trains or automobiles for short trips and more will do so if the inconvenience mounts. These are not trivial issues. Airlines, already financially strapped, depend on business fliers who are the most likely to object to a change in the rules.
Airlines could head off some of these problems by, for example, storing valuable electronic devices in locked overhead bins where they can’t easily be stolen, and hiring more baggage handlers to unload planes rapidly. Separating people from their laptops during flights would be painful, although some people could surely use the time to go over reading material, or even revert to pen and paper.
The Times seems to regard the individual travelers on airplanes as cattle that simply must be moved from point A to point B in the most efficient matter. The comfort and convenience of the cattle appears not to concern them in the slightest. The closest they come to expressing concern is when they fret that all this absurd restrictions might cause fewer people to fly, thereby hurting the airlines’ bottom line.
And the we get a healthy dose of smug paternalism: sure, you’d like to use your laptop on the flight, but the New York Times knows better than you do what you should be doing with your time on airplane flights! Shut up and get in line for your strip search.
This is another example of what Julian calls reductio creep. When they started confiscating our nail files and lighters, some of us said, “why don’t we just ban carry-on luggage altogether?” We thought it was a joke. But now, we’re hearing the same thing from the paper of record. And they appear to be serious.
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.
Comments on this entry are closed.