Orwellian Super Bowl?

A recent article in the USA today caught my eye – it was about tomorrow’s Super Bowl and the security measures that will be carried out. Apparently, for the first time there will be a team of ‘behavior officials,’ monitoring the crowd members.

These behavior specialists are TSA (Transportation Security Administration) officers who are regularly posted in and around airports, observing people and analyzing their mannerisms, breathing patterns, and conversation styles to determine whether or not any suspicious behavior is evident. For the first time ever though, these ‘spies’ will be cruising the Tampa Bay stands for suspect actions during the big Sunday game. So, why the sudden decision to implement higher levels of security this year?

The issue of security has always been a vexing concept for me – what means are we willing to take as a country to ensure our safety? Do we rely too heavily on the innate moral obligation of people to not take advantage of the freedom we allow our citizens? Is there even any natural concept of right and wrong? Why don’t people just randomly bring a bomb onto the New York subway? It seems too easy. Yet we very rarely experience domestic terrorism and violence in the United States.

However, as the threat of terrorism becomes more serious in today’s world, where are we going to have to draw the line? Especially with the advancements in technology and weaponry, it is becoming increasingly more difficult to know what exactly to expect from malicious people. Measures taken today would have been unheard of sixty years ago. Although it seems trite and cliche, as situations such as the one at the Super Bowl come up, it seems fair to say that we may in fact be slowly moving toward the type of state depicted in Orwell’s 1984.

One thing that does not change as drastically as technology, however, is the study of psychology and human behavioral patterns. It is for this reason that methods such as ‘behavior detection’ are still relevant – it is the way agencies go about doing it, though that causes the stir.

For example, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is already jumping onto the subject, saying that “the technique is unproven and that its use at a stadium sets an alarming precedent for police inquiries,” and the blog privacylives.com has brought the situation into question due to the trouble and inconvenience it brings to innocent bystanders. It seems the nay-sayers may have a case though, as the USA today previously wrote an article about how statistics show that the behavior detection system is quite inefficient and ultimately unsuccessful.

My only problem, however is seeing these types of situations from the same perspective as the ACLU. Sure, I can see where they’re coming from in that it can be inconvenient or bothersome to be troubled at an airport. But what I can’t understand is why they are adamant in abandoning new techniques just because a statistic may show that they are not ‘proven’ to be accurate. It seems to me that even if it is very inefficient – lets say 1 potential threat out of a pool of 100,000 people interrogated – doesn’t that one threat justify the other 99,999 people who may have had to answer a few questions? Why are groups such as the ACLU determined to ‘protect’ the people from such petty issues as being brought aside and asked some questions for the ultimate security of many other lives? Does it not seem somewhat pretentious that these people are so troubled that they would want to stop a practice that may in fact be beneficial to a much greater amount of citizens?

Even so, it is an issue that will only become more controversial in time, and our representatives on the hill will eventually one day have to come to decide how much ‘behavior detection,’ and similar methods, is acceptable.