The Fine Line Between Security and Privacy

Let’s play a game of “What if…”. What if you were a Canadian flying from Toronto to Vancouver. The only piece of luggage you had was a metal case containing $5000.00. When you went through security, the officers noticed that you were carrying a large sum of money with you.

Now what is the acceptable response from the security officers? Should they be allowed to question you about the money? How about your job, what you were doing in Toronto, what you’ll be doing in Vancouver? Realize that while carrying that much cash may seem at the least foolish, its not illegal.

Some of you might need more information. “What was the money for or from? What was I doing in Toronto, or going to do in Vancouver?” You may feel that you need to know whether this was absolutely innocent, or whether you were transporting drug money…and that knowing that will form whether you would relinquish information when asked.

Privacy

But why is that? Why do we feel that its ok for us to share information that we don’t legally have to supply?

Consider the experience of Steve Bierfeldt. Steve works for the Campaign for Liberty, a political group led by Ron Paul. Now there’s huge backstory to this situation, including a report identifying radical militia members released to Missouri law inforcement. In this report, they suggest that militia members commonly associate with third party political groups, and actually identify the Campaign for Liberty by name. So while this report had been floating around since the end of February, Mr. Bierfeldt finishes up at a conference in St. Louis, collecting just under $5000 from sales of books, marketing material, tickets, and other conference-related items that are associated with the Campaign for Liberty organization. He puts the cash and cheques into a metal case and goes to catch his plane to DC.

But when going through security, the TSA officers notice the money. They become suspicious and decide to question Steve further.

The Washington Times has published an article on the incident, but we have more than just words to go on: Steve recorded the questioning on his iPhone. Throughout the questioning, Steve is asked questions such as where the money is from, where he works, what he does there, etc. Steve responds time and time again with: Am I legally required to answer that question?

So let’s go back to the initial game of “What If”. Yes its odd to see that much money go through security. Yes, there may be a totally harmless explanation. But if we aren’t doing anything illegal, why should we feel that we have to explain ourselves? To be nice? Because our social conscience doesn’t want others to think we’re bad people? Because its easier for us just to be cooperative to authority so that we don’t miss our plane?

In an interview with The Washington Times, Mr. Bierfeldt writes…

"I was not refusing to answer the questions. I was only saying, as per the law, 'Am I legally required to answer the questions?'"

"We are becoming far too eager to give away our liberties in the face of false security. We want to make our plane and we don't want a five-minute hassle so we are eager to give up our freedom, and that is unfortunate."

In one of his more famous comments, Pierre Trudeau remarked:

The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation.

Why should we feel that our privacy is something that should be sacrificed so easily to authorities when no illegal activity has occurred and therefore have no right to investigate?

Security

There’s another sentiment though and another way to look at the situation. By all of us giving up some of our privacy, we somehow make our shared experience safer (or at least that’s the theory).

I was at a casino for dinner one night with friends, and we took a picture of ourselves at the table. Security came over and explained that cameras were not permitted and actually gave the explanation that someone like a pastor or public figure could be there and might not want to be photographed. The *freedom* of taking a picture was taken away from all to ensure that those who probably shouldn’t be there could…and could be there without disguise.

While that scenario sounds twisted, its similar to how we’ve come to view airport security: if we all just provide whatever information is asked we ensure that those entrusted with sniffing out the bad guys will have an easier job and not have to waste time with those that have nothing to hide; we all give up something for the greater security of all.

I’ve read comments on some websites complaining about how they have to take off shoes at airports in the US and how silly it seems. Of course, the fact that a terrorist attempted to set off a bomb in his shoes puts this in perspective, and as a traveller I’m ok with going through this exercise if it means ensuring a safer experience; I’ll gladly give up not having to take off my shoes if it means nobody is trying to set their Nike’s off at 20,000 feet.

There’s also the idea of cooperation between travellers and those entrusted with their safety. Should those of us that travel without illegal intentions or transporting anything illegal not want to help our security personnel do their jobs better, easily filtering out the non-threats while focussing on those that may truly have unscrupulous plans?

The Fine Line

So where does this leave us? What is the correct approach to the What If scenario? I know that in Canada things may be seen as different then in the US. In reading and talking with US friends, there is definitely a distrust of government and authority that I don’t think exists (or at least not as strongly) in Canada. Canadian culture doesn’t have its base in the same ideals as the US, so maybe the line up here isn’t so fine?

Or maybe at the end of the day, in Canada we see our government as truly being a servant of the people…where the US sees its government as an overreaching authority interfering with their freedom and liberty?

But regardless of what side of the border you live on, the discussion on how much authorities should be able to question or learn about you under the banner of national security is still very much active and ongoing.

I’d love to hear thoughts on this, so please comment.