Biometric body scanners are now widely used in airports as an additional security measure, however, their deployment has sparked ethical and legal concerns among researchers civil servants and public policy-makers.  One common question among critics is, “why is there no outrage?”  People seem surprisingly complacent when it comes to allowing strangers to see their ‘naked bodies’.  But why is this?  The following quote from the Independent struck me as particularly interesting, as it seems to hold true for many people.

“They can show what they scan of me on 1,000-inch screens throughout the airport for all I care. They wouldn't bother of course. I know the limits of my appeal. […] ...are we supposed to care? Where the soul has already been sold cheap should we really waste our outrage on the selling of a body? Privacy? Reader, he who fights to protect our privacy in the age of television and Hello! is defending what almost nobody any longer wants.”
The Independent, Op. & Debate. 9 Jan. 2010

Furthermore, if the image is so far away from us (physically), and we will probably never see the image even if it could be stored on a database permanently, why would it bother us? The technology comes with promises of more security and efficiency at airports.  Is this enough to override any ethical concerns we may have about the technology?

Over the recent months, there has been controversial coverage by the media on issues surrounding the body scanners, however, in some ways it seems like cases of hindsight, and, too little too late.  Although security in airports and on board aircraft is of utmost importance in the aftermath of 9/11, and a number of other attempted terrorist attacks, it could be said that governments have rushed into the use of these scanners without a second thought for some of the serious ethical concerns surrounding their use.  Furthermore, it needs to be questioned whether the level of security they achieve, justifies a neglect of previous values and of laws.  Firstly, the machines are unable to detect plastics or chemicals, so already it can be seen that the machines would have provided no protection from the threat of the liquid bombers, nor would they have provided any security from the threat of syringe bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab on Christmas Day 2009. There has also been discussion in the British press over the breaching of law.  The images produced by the body scanners are extremely graphic, so much so that genitalia and even breast implants are visible on the images.  It has been suggested that this is a serious breach of privacy and there has been mention that these machines are impinging on discrimination laws.  So, we have a genuine cause for concern?

On an even more serious note, is the issue of child protection laws.  On January 10, 2010, Alan Travis stated in the Guardian newspaper that, “new scanners break child porn laws.”  He refers to the creation of these images as “virtual strip searching”.  Children in the UK have not had to go through the scanners like everyone else while the legal situation is clarified.  But there are a number of problems here.  To avoid breaching child pornography laws, must we exempt those under 18 years of age from going through the scanners?  Are there no terrorists younger than 18? The alternative would be to bring in a new legislation to ensure that airport security staff are not prosecuted.  That, however, will only create new problems.  For example, a security guard at Heathrow airport was given a police warning for commenting on images of a female colleague in a scanner.  So, even if a legislation is brought in, it is possible that offences will take place, and, if airport staff are made immune from prosecution surrounding the misuse of indecent images, then it seems like we are moving away from solving the problems, and not towards them.  There has also been talk on the internet of a next generation body scanners which could be seen as an attempt to overcome some of the shortfalls of the current model; the full body x-ray machine (which can obviously see inside your body).    But I have my own worry regarding such an intimate screening in a public place; if a machine can produce a clear x-ray of your whole body, there is no reason to think that it won’t pick up on scoliosis of the spine, for example, before the individual or a doctor has seen any warning.  Of course the images would never be sent to peoples’ doctors for further analysis, but there is something seriously wrong about this which I cannot quite put my finger on.

Considering the worries that have surfaced with respect to the use of airport body scanners, it is a wonder that they were introduced in the first place. No one can be sure if they really are improving security, relative to the compromise of peoples’ privacy.  I am all for air-tight security, but I think it is also important that governments consider carefully, the ethical and legal concerns, which in most other domains would be addressed without a second thought.

References

Adey, P. (2009). ‘Facing airport security: affect, biopolitics, and the preemptive securitization of the mobile body.’ Society and Space. Vol. 27. Pp. 274-295

Alterman, A. (2003). ‘“A piece of yourself.”  Ethical issues in Biometric Identification.’ Ethics and Information Technology. Vol. 5 (3). pp. 139-150

Anil, J., Pankanti, S., Prabhakar, S. (2003). ‘Biometric Recognition: Security and Privacy Concerns. IEEE Security and Privacy. Vol. 1 (2). pp. 33-42

Jacobson, H. (2010). ‘Some things are more important than human rights – life and love, for starters.’ The Independent, Opinion & Debate, 9 January 2010. Available online at http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/howard-jacobson/howard-jacobson-some-things-are-more-important-than-human-rights-ndash-life-and-love-for-starters-1862423.html.

Travis, A. (2010). ‘New scanners break child porn laws.’ The Guardian, 4 January 2010. Available online at http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jan/04/new-scanners-child-porn-laws.

Charlotte Harwell currently undertaking an MA in Philosophy at the University of Lancaster, and also working part time as a Research Assistant in Cesagen on the European Commission-funded project ICT Ethics. Her research on the one hand are in the ethical, legal and societal issues related to new and emerging technologies, such as biometric security at airports, robotics in all domains (including the home, surveillance, transport and medicine), and ambient intelligent technologies.  On the other hand, she is interested in both meta-ethical and meta-physical questions in Philosophy, particularly the Philosophy of Hume, Hegel and also, Blackburn.

Downloads

	Ethical issues surrounding the use of biometric body scanners in airports