Sorry, Ben, but You're Wrong

The issue of national security sometimes takes precedence over the idea of personal liberty – that is a fact that we all readily accept. It is surprising to me that border searches and airplane searches raise such issues simply because these locations are particularly high-risk security areas. The fact that people often concentrate in these areas raises the need for increased scrutiny within these areas, and, in my mind, trump notions of personal privacy.

When a person walks down the street, he presents little risk to the welfare of the other people that might be around him on the street. If he is violent or abusive, he will be stopped and contained with little harm to the passers-by as compared to a highly congested area. If a large crowd is gathered on the street, the negative consequences will be more pronounced and afflict more people. Thus, law enforcement officials increase their numbers so threats can still be easily contained in order to protect the well being of the group. The fact that so many people can be adversely affected so quickly is the cause for concern and necessary factor for more security.

Continuing this analogy, imagine someone diving a car. Because of the particular circumstances associated with driving – high speeds, other people driving, potential for pile-ups and property damage – the state has an even more compelling interest in social safety and can thus legislate what may or may not be present in a vehicle – weapons, drugs, open alcohol containers. It is also important to note that cars, as vehicles, allow illegal actions to influence people beyond the normal personal space, such as a dealer transporting a shipment or a pedophile delivering child pornography. So, the fact that cars allow for mobility is further cause for more scrutiny.

A society has a compelling interest to protect its citizens from substances or content that it finds abhorrent or destructive to its values, and venues of mass transit are choke points where harmful content can enter. At these choke points, personal liberty takes a backseat to group security because of the high risks of mass transit. While it is unfortunate that law-abiding citizens may sometimes be harassed by intrusive searches, the unique attributes of both borders and airports necessitate more scrutiny than normal circumstances allow.

Thus, I have no problems with border computer searches, full body scanners (so long as they delete the image immediately and cannot print it off), or detaining suspected drug mules. My question: Benjamin Franklin once said “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Why does the Digital Age prove this aphorism to be antiquated? Does it?