Invasion of the Body Scanners
The other item that has lit up Canadian politics other than the prorogation of Parliament is the government’s decision to purchase and introduce forty-four full body scanners for use in Canadian airports. The decision follows on the heels of the “undie-bomber” incident in the US, though testing of the equipment has been underway for at least the past year. The opposition parties and various civil rights groups are understandably concerned about the decision,
Canadian Civil Liberties Association general counsel Natalie Des Rosiers said she had concerns about the behavioral screening plan, which she says could be used to single out certain groups for racial profiling.
She also had concerns that while the government has portrayed the scanners as optional, security officials may change their minds and make the scans mandatory after their implementation.
Like Des Rosiers, I too have concerns about the idea that the scanners would be used as a second line of defense after behavioural cues triggered the need for scanning. But unlike Des Rosiers, I think that the way to alleviate that concern is to go ahead and make scanning policies universal and mandatory. It strikes me that more often than not, concerns about infringements of civil rights hinge on systemic concentrations of power that are utilized in an inconsistent and unfair manner by human beings. A human is supposed to make a fair and reasonable judgment about whether a situation warrants the use of heightened degrees of power over another person for a larger (generally public) good. The idea being that the vast preponderance of human beings who are charged with that task are well-equipped and able to carry out those judgments in a fashion that is acceptable.
Experience, however, often points out to us that we are anything but capable of carrying out judgements about the application of asymmetrical power relations in a fair and reasonable fashion. For a further airport case, just look at the unfortunate story of Robert Dzieka?ski (video here).
What I like about the idea of making full body scans universal and mandatory is that it could help to further remove that element of human judgment from the process by placing individuals who are viewing the images of those being scanned in another room where the scanee is out of sight, limiting the scanning to legal adults only, and requiring that all information obtained be erased following a “clean” scan. Assuming all of that is properly coordinated (perhaps a big if, I suppose), then I think that, as far as air travel goes, full body scanners could stand to improve the application of civil rights.
The other element that is worth noting is that for all my drubbing of American foreign policy, terrorist threats are real, require attention, and have demonstrably been aimed at air travel. In that regard, decisions to do what governments can in the interests of their citizens’ safety, both particularly and generally, are definitely warranted.
Of course, it says something that Israeli officials call full body scanners “ineffective”, but it would seem that the Israeli complaint has less to do with the efficacy of the technology and more to do with their predilection for the methodology I’ve called into question — at least as far as this story indicates,
Security checks at international airports are focused on finding explosives or weapons, when they should concentrate on identifying terrorists, says the head of one Israeli security consultancy.
Israel does use extensive technology, but puts more emphasis on passenger profiling and behaviour — and checkpoints and questioning begin outside airports.
At the end of the day, I know there is a significant impulse to look at full body scanners in airports and cry civil rights foul, but I also think that further inspection reveals a more nuanced situation in which technology could present more of a help than a hindrance. In a choice between machines and profiling/behavioural analysis, I’m going to opt for machines pretty much every time.
Related posts...
Tip o’ the Hat
Gifts of Gab
- ?
- I was thinking of an old ...
- Thanks Ken and Mark (and ...
- I thought Vanderbilt was ...
- Hey! I had Murray State a...
- Good post. As I said, I t...
- oh crimany yes. when peop...
- plain n simple. i drink o...
- Funny story about that on...
- In fairness, as you refer...
-
34 comments
I’d hit it.
No, Jaybird. For that you need to go to the post that Drudge has up about body scanners. Can’t post a pic in the comments here, but Sullivan pointed to it here:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/01/drudge-gaybaits-napolitano.html
What’s interesting is that the idea of someone seeing a blue photo of my naked body strikes me as… meh. But my wife is outraged. Perhaps because there is a good chance people will leer at hers, but not mine, I suppose. Just look at the Drudge picture. I am not sure we are mature enough, as a nation, to view it without snickering.
Jaybird
January 8th, 2010 at 1:41 pm
Don’t forget the enjoyment that one might get from knowing that someone, somewhere, is looking at a blue you.
Call me Doctor Manhattan, baby.
Aw.
Yeah.
Scott H. Payne
January 8th, 2010 at 1:44 pm
Hold me closer tiny dancer!
Kyle R. Cupp
January 8th, 2010 at 3:34 pm
Just wait till someone leaks images to the Internet!
Jaybird
January 8th, 2010 at 3:38 pm
The best part is painting yourself blue and labeling the pictures “leaked body scan images of Brad Pitt!” and it’s just you taking a picture of yourself painted blue.
I’ll probably have to get started on uploading those tomorrow, when I have a day to myself.
when i get home from work i’ll have to google to see if some people have a fetish about getting all hot and sweaty when they get a good full body scan. if there isn’t that predilection already, there will be.
Erotoscanism?
You guys are sick, sick, sick!
The Israeli’s are right…profile, baby!
Enough whining about privacy and profiling.
Mark Thompson
January 8th, 2010 at 2:03 pm
I agree. If we are to remain a free country, we have to stop being a free country.
Scott H. Payne
January 8th, 2010 at 2:04 pm
*snort*
Dave
January 8th, 2010 at 2:38 pm
Come on Mark. The Constitution’s not a suicide pact.
Besides, if you are doing nothing wrong, your rights aren’t in jeopardy. You have nothing to hide, right?
Scott H. Payne
January 8th, 2010 at 2:41 pm
Get off my lawn, you nihilist!
Dave
January 8th, 2010 at 2:52 pm
Hey, that’s MY M-1.
Scott H. Payne
January 8th, 2010 at 2:53 pm
You snooze, you lose.
Jaybird
January 8th, 2010 at 3:17 pm
I know you are kidding. I have to reflexively say this anyway:
The Constitution *IS* a suicide pact, thank you very much.
greginak
January 8th, 2010 at 3:22 pm
You have a point, but I’m not sure that works as a campaign slogan.
Jaybird
January 8th, 2010 at 3:46 pm
I’m certain that running on a “everything you want, someone else will pay for it!” platform would result in not only nomination to one of the two major parties but winning the election.
I’m just not comfortable doing so.
historystudent
January 8th, 2010 at 7:39 pm
No, it isn’t a suicide pact. But there is also no such thing as absolute security. That applies to airport security too. We should not so eagerly trade freedoms and privacy in the name of security when that sought security is a relative not total thing.
However, my concerns regarding these body scanners have more to do with radiation than with privacy issues. I know that the “experts” claim that the scanners are no health threat (some claim one would get more radiation from cosmic rays than from these machines). However, experts have been known to be wrong, and no one really knows what even miniscule doses of “extra” radiation may do if used in a routine screening device. So, I prefer that they err on the side of caution. If they’re mistaken about the risks, health care might have a lot more cases of cancer in twenty years….
Scott
January 8th, 2010 at 2:41 pm
Using those two tools to safeguard the flying public would hardly stop us from being a “free country.” I guess you prefer sitting back safe with the knowledge that the system worked.
Dave
January 8th, 2010 at 2:42 pm
No, I’m just mocking your simplemindedness.
Scott
January 8th, 2010 at 3:12 pm
Mock all you want but El Al has real security not the sham TSA security theater that we in the US get. Security may not be as important on an Air Canada flight for obvious reason but here in the US it real concern.
As an aside, here is a true story. My in-laws both worked with the GSA for the US gov’t. One did property and one did security stuff. They used to live in Seattle and worked on the border crossings with Canada. They once asked a Canadian friend what she would do if they had trouble at one of the customs stations on the Canadian side as none of them them were armed. Her answer was they would have to call for help from the Canadians with guns and hold out until help arrived or try and get help from the Americans who do have guns.
Mark Thompson
January 8th, 2010 at 3:17 pm
Because the way that the national airline of a small country does security is totally practicable in the US. This would have no effect whatsoever on the economy or anything.
Scott H. Payne
January 8th, 2010 at 3:18 pm
I’m Canadian, Dave is as American as you, Scott. And, from a Canadian perspective, I answered your comment about the need for security balanced with other considerations. And I fail to see how your anecdotal commentary on my country has any real bearing or argument on the discussion at hand.
Mark Thompson
January 8th, 2010 at 2:45 pm
Le sigh. That’s exactly what I’m saying.
Scott H. Payne
January 8th, 2010 at 2:48 pm
As I think this post indicates, I myself am in favour of generating a system that increases air travel safety, respects the rights and liberties of free peoples, and safeguards against the all too human tendency towards biased and unfair judgment of others. And I think critical estimations of the situation facing us can lead towards the creation of such a system.
E.D. Kain
January 8th, 2010 at 2:51 pm
I’m in favor of just banning airplane travel altogether personally. Damn stupid airplanes.
I read on another blog that Ben Gurion Airport is about the same size as Sacramento, CA airport. The profiling mentioned takes about 20 minutes or more per international passenger and is conducted by three to four security agents. International flights are much fewer per day than in large US airports and local flights are practically non-existent since there are so few friendly countries in the region. The Israeli system would probably not be too practical at O’Hare or Dallas or Atlanta. Check out Joyner at OTB. Oh, greginak is probalby right, there would be some who would regularly go through security for the thrill of being scanned. High tech flashing.
The day is coming when scanners will be able to determine whether someone has taken an illegal drug recently, or even what he/she has eaten in the past several hours. And it won’t require bulky equipment, or necessitate informing the person being scanned. For example, someone working at a computer (i.e., virtually everyone every day) could be scanned without his/her knowledge. What happens when such a surreptious scan reveals the person is at risk for a serious disease.
This is the tip of an iceberg.
Jaybird
January 9th, 2010 at 6:22 pm
Imagine how easy it will be to protect The Children when we reach that point!
I refuse to allow three-dimensional electromagentic images of me to be used for the sexual gratification of airport security staff. I am a famous female celebrity with breast enlargements, where are my rights?. If these filthy perverts want to sit around all day, leering at pornographic images of fat holidyamakers then they can do it at home, on their own time, like the rest of us.
Scott, this is a well-thought out, eloquent article. I especially enjoyed your take on predictive profiling. My beef with profiling is that critical studies of the techniques employed in that system (e.g., kinesic detection of deception and Facial Action Coding System) have shown them to be either unreliable (body language) or not validated for that particular use (FACS). If people want an Israeli-style security system, I would be all for it, but we should critically examine it and its components before blindly accepting that system in its totality. To do so would be to potentially waste valuable resources on unnecessary procedures when those resources could be used to bolster more effective and proven methods. I tried debating this with Leo Knight (a “security expert”) at his Prime Time Crime blog, but was called “stupid” and “ideological” for my troubles. Sigh.
I think the privacy concern is really a red herring. The much more important question that far fewer people seem to be asking is whether the “in theory” marginal improvement in airline safety is worth the billions of dollars in incremental spending that would be required to outfit the world’s airports with body scanners. I’d suggest there are many better ways to use those billions to improve our safety and peace of mind as a nation than by trying to take air travel from 99.9997% safe to 99.9999% safe.