Airport body scanners: privacy vs security

The Christmas Day attempted bombing of Northwest Airlines Flight 253 has quickly changed the way people fly and ignited a debate about privacy and security in the airline industry. On that December 25^th flight, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab allegedly attempted to ignite explosives stored in his underwear. This failed bombing attempt has led to the rapid adoption of airport scanners that can see through traveller’s clothing and has brought privacy concerns regarding the machines into the spotlight.

Where air travel is concerned there will always be a trade off between privacy and security. It is natural that individuals are expected to sacrifice some privacy in the name of public safety but exactly how far the state can and should go in the name of public safety is an open question. The rapid and widespread adoption of “naked” airport scanners has garnered a lot of media attention as people question the new technology and the implications of its use. Like all security measures the appropriateness of its use is determined by weighing the benefits offered against the costs of its use.

The primary benefit offered by the full body airport scanners is increased safety. The new machines provide a detailed check for hidden weapons and explosives and will allow for greater detection of such items. Supporters of the scanners argue that their widespread use can effectively prevent attacks, like the one attempted on Christmas Day, from occurring.

A second benefit offered by the machines is peace of mind. If the new technology makes a significant contribution to the public perception that flying is safe it will positively influence the number of people that choose to fly. Given the importance of tourism and the airline industry this is an important consideration. Even should the scanners not actually prevent a single attack they could still provide a powerful, if somewhat illusory, benefit as long as the public perception is that they increase safety.

The primary concern regarding the adoption of “naked” scanners is the degree to which they invade privacy. Many travellers are understandably uncomfortable with the idea of security personnel viewing a three dimensional outline of their naked body. Some people feel that the machines are overly invasive, and that their rapid adoption is an overreaction to the failed attack on December 25^th.

It is important to note that, as CBC reports, the scanners will only to be used on passengers singled out for extra screening, the images will be viewed by officers in another room who never actually see the passenger, the images are not to be stored, transmitted or printed, and the singled out travellers will have the option of a physical search instead.

So do the “naked” scanners represent a fair trade off between security and privacy? A recent poll by The Canadian Press reports that four out of five Canadians find the use of the scanners reasonable. Three quarters of the individuals polled also felt that the technology was likely to be effective in reducing the risk of a terrorist attack. I tend to agree. It is telling that the scanners were undergoing a test run in Kelowna, B.C., and were also being used in many U.S. airports, long before the Christmas Day incident. I make a note of this because I find it significant that even without the increased anxiety of a recent terrorist attempt the scanners were being adopted and put to use.

In this case I do think the foregone privacy is fair given what is at stake but I wouldn’t want to discount the debate that has surrounded this issue. Whenever the rights of citizens are impacted by the actions of government a high degree of vigilance is warranted. It is important that we stand on guard to ensure that important rights aren’t infringed for inadequate reasons. If I am going to give up a fundamental right I want to be sure that I am doing so for valid reasons.