InkUnderNails

This is a good point. If my exposure to the scanner was 2-4 times per year, on the personal safety aspect alone, I would consider that a manageable risk. Since I make 70-80 passes through security a year, the safety factor may not be as easily dismissed.

The objections to the new procedures and technology have three well defined, and generally non-overlapping, areas of concern. Because of the diverse nature of these objections, we find that there are people that will have problems with one aspect, but not the other two. This creates a situation in which even those that agree can disagree. It provides an opportunity for the proponents of the technology to divide us along our internal dividing lines. Since our opponents are generally part of the political class, they are the ultimate experts in gaining power through the techniques that takes a combined group of enthusiasts and splits them into factions to exploit the weaknesses. It is up to us to ally with each other in a decisive manner and take the steps to ensure that our diversity of reason does not create division in our combined strength to oppose the technology.

These three areas of concern are as follows, the system refers to the combined use of scanners and the resolution pat-downs:

1. The system may be dangerous and its long-term effects are unproven.
   
   
2. The system is an unnecessary invasion of personal space and modesty.
   
   
3. The system uses techniques that are illegal or unconstitutional.
   

If our opponents can divide us, it can weaken us. Here is an example.

The avatar system for the scanners can be perfected and deployed, the privacy concerns can be mitigated. The resolutions can already be requested to be done in private and there is other evidence that attempts to minimize the invasion of privacy are being considered. Once those that are concerned about personal space and modesty issues are placated, the rest of us lose valuable allies in this battle.

We see this played out in our own discussions. A very common statement is "I do not care if anybody see my naked body, but I oppose this because they might be dangerous." This is a poor long-term strategy as it encourages the tactic of division. A better attitude that says the same thing and keeps us joined is "I oppose these machines because of the unknown safety and I join my voice with those that have modesty and legal concerns to eliminate them."

We have now moved past a defined stage in the battle and are now forced to engage at a different level. We won the initial "get out the information" battle and that will continue. Many people are informed and more need to be.

Our next stage is harder, much harder. The next stage, already being played, requires reasoned debate. We will be asked to defend our positions with facts and reasoning. We can no longer throw stuff against the wall to see what sticks. We must be smart. We must become very educated, very fast. Another example will show what I mean.

The reason I am against the system is the legal and constitutional issues. But, IANAL particularly a constitutional one. I have spent hours reading and learning and trying to understand how the process got to where it is. I ask questions of real experts on this board and take their advice and counsel very seriously. I am building a knowledge base of information and documented facts that I can use to reason, debate and persuade. It is very hard work, especially for a novice. But, it is necessary work. As we try to convince others, we will do so more effectively with reasoned arguments backed by facts than we will by emotion and enthusiasm. They are needed, but they do not sway debates.

If you oppose based on the safety issues, then do the hard work of learning about radiation and RF emissions, why it is dangerous, the differences in the particle and their energies, wavelengths, how the technology works and on and on. See, it is very hard work. But when someone makes the common, but patently ridiculous statement, that you get as much radiation just sitting in the airplane as you do from the scanner, you can answer with something better that "Do Not!" or a blank stare.

And the hardest of all may be arguing a position for which we do not have a passionate position. One final example.

If I am discussing the legal/constitutional aspect, and the person I am discussing this with says "I do not care about that, I worry about someone looking at my child naked" we have to be prepared to at least intelligently discuss that issue or point he person to good information from someone who can. What we absolutely must avoid, and it disappoints me to see it on this board from time to time, is saying "Yeah, some people are worried about that, but I do not think is a big deal, it is the legal stuff that is important." We have given up on an opportunity to persuade with this attitude.

I apologize for the long post. I just want us to be prepared for the next phase. It is not yet time to admire the trophy shelf, as we should be busy preparing for the next game.