"You are not allowed to touch your suitcase," ordered the federal guard searching my checked luggage at the Reno airport last week.
I stood and watched, a transparent barrier between me and my suitcase. He pulled out my snow boots and removed the neatly folded socks inside. He inserted a wand into each boot.
He began to zip the suitcase. I could see that an easily frayed sweater was likely to get caught in the zipper's teeth. As I leaned forward and pointed toward the vulnerable spot, to warn him to use caution, he spoke those chilling words to me.
I had been rebuked for trying to help him protect my property.
Just days before, I'd read in this newspaper that the newly created Transportation Security Administration has awarded a contract to Lockheed Martin to develop a passenger risk assessment and pre-screening system also known as the Computer Assisted Passenger Pre-Screening System II (CAPPS II).
Here's what they are proposing, according to recent news reports. Travelers would be labeled as "green" "yellow" and "red" security risks. Red is for those on terrorist watch lists; they would be barred from flying. "Yellows" would be subject to extra-intensive security screening, but the criteria for yellow is unclear. And "greens" would supposedly find their travel expedited by less security screening.
The computer system would scan existing data bases including Department of Motor Vehicle records, bank records, and credit ratings to verify the identify of the traveler. It is unclear whether the information would be used to verify the identity of the individual or to evaluate information connected to the individual in the context of screening criteria.
From what I've read, the traveler would not have the right to appeal the rating or even review the information that was the basis for the color code, which would be a permanent label.
The thought of such a system is both attractive and abhorrent. From a purely selfish perspective, if my green rating could make air travel more efficient and less stressful for me, I'd be tempted.
So were Harvard law students who were surveyed by a law professor to determine their willingness to accept profiling of airline passengers if they could save time in security checks. Forty-four percent of students favored profiling if it saved them 10 minutes; 74 percent were in favor if it saved them an hour. The professor concluded that people are willing to make tradeoffs.
But do we really know what we're trading? The specter of runaway technology bundled with national security and unfettered government intrusion is chilling.
We have all experienced the result of computers in charge: the bill that keeps on billing long after the account is closed; the bank that can't make the computer understand that the monthly service charge doesn't apply, month after month after month.
How much more certainty is there in the world of high tech computer snooping that the government can get it right?
Consider the air traveler mistakenly identified by the system as yellow, permanently labeled as such and for all practical purposes, barred from air travel. The yellow designation can be shared among federal and state agencies, and employers doing background checks. The yellow designation takes on a life of its own, similar to people who've had their identifies stolen.
Preserving the ability for our citizens to move freely about the country is fundamental. Making sure that they can do so safely is essential. And in America, individual rights and the right to privacy must not be traded or compromised in the quest for safety and security.
Abby Johnson consults on rural community development, public involvement and nuclear waste issues. She is married, lives in Carson City, and has one high school-aged child.
