Use of Electronic Search Devices in Airports - Essay Example

?Running head: Should electronic search devices be used in airports? Should electronic search devices be used in airports? Introduction Airport security has been a pressing issue after the America terrorism attacks. Many airports in the world have invested in the installation of security devices in their facilities to guarantee their travelers of ultimate security. In the previous times, security in the airports mainly involved manual checks on luggage and pat-downs on individuals as well as scanning with metal detectors. The pat-down method faced a lot of legal issues with people suing for sexual harassment. This motivated the recent introduction of electronic search devices in airports. Contrary to the expectations of the airport crew who expected the devices to be universally accepted by the people, they have attracted a lot of criticism instead. Since the introduction of electronic search devices in airports, debates on whether the electronic devices should be used to search people have hit the roof. Some people believe that the use of electronic devices will enhance the security level in airports while others question the social ethical issues that the devices have tagged along with their use. Many airports all around the world have installed body scanners, screening wands and metal detectors that are being used to screen the travelers before they board the airplanes. The move is basically to ensure security in a bid to counter terrorism that has brought safety issues all over the world. This paper will focus on the debate on why electronic search devices should not be used in airports. Why the devices should not be used Scientists have proved that the body scanners that are being used in airports work under electromagnetic radiation. Being subjected to electromagnetic radiation is risky to travelers with implanted electronic gadgets like implantable cardioverter defibrillators, pacemakers and neurostimulators. The recently introduced electronic search devices impel high radiations of high frequency on the body of the travelers. The radiations penetrate the clothes and are reflected back by the person’s skin to form an image of their body and whatever is in their clothes. There is no telling whether certain amounts of the radiations can penetrate through the human skin and affect implanted medical gadgets. The effect on pacemakers would be temporary disruption of output which could be fatal, hence threatening the right to life on the individuals. Different states should be compelled to protect their citizens by halting the use of these devices (Bloxham, 2010). The body scanners use advanced technology to create the exact images of the travelers being screened. The crew in the observation rooms in the airports is able to see through travelers clothes. The images created portray the person’s naked body. They are actually able to see a revealing image of the passenger’s private parts. This is an outright invasion of personal privacy. There could even be a chance that the images formed could leak to other sources. For this, the devices should be abolished with immediate effect (Savage, 2010). Seeing that the electronic devices allow the people in the control room to view a vivid image of the passenger’s bodies, they reveal their bodily anomalies that could lead to stigmatization. For instance, a passenger could be having certain body deformations that they are very sensitive about. Revealing these body parts deformations would greatly humiliate them and it is invasive of their privacy. Even if the travelers images are kept private, the psychological effects of knowing that someone somewhere has seen their body anomalies could be too much to bear. The affected people could develop fears to travel if everywhere they go their bodies are viewed. This is an indirect violation of their right to free movement (Savage, 2010). The body scanners were introduced to replace the controversial pat-downs. The perplexing thing is the airports have moved travelers from the frying pan into the fire. Pat-downs involved very invasive body feeling that was viewed by many as sexual harassment. The body scanners now reveal the travelers naked body image. The observers can freely view the travelers’ private parts, breasts and buttocks. If this is not worse sexual harassment than what pat-downs subjected to the travelers, then those who introduced it should question their morals (Savage, 2010). The world is full of religious denominations with different beliefs. There are certain religious groups whose beliefs are strongly against public display of certain body parts. For instance, the Islamic women have strong beliefs in only revealing their hair to their spouses alone, thus they wear head coverings wherever they go. The electronic searching devices cannot distinguish between people of different religious beliefs. They reveal the entire body image, revealing the believed sacred body parts to the observers. This is not only a violation to the victim’s privacy right but also a threat to freedom of worship. Their religious beliefs are violated by the scanners and they should therefore not be used (Ridgeway, 2010). The body scanning does not exclude children. Parents have the right to refuse their children to be scanned but the alternative is to subject them to the pat-down. Most parents would rather have their children scanned. This means that their children’s naked bodies are not viewed by the airport security crew. The world today has made people very unpredictable. There is no way of telling who is a pedophile or who is not. Everyone is a suspect and the scanning crew in the observation room is no exception. The electronic search devices should not be used on children or any other person for that matter (Ridgeway, 2010). There have been reports of the airport security crew members forcing members of the colored race and Islamic people to be scanned. Legally, a passenger can opt out from being scanned and take the alternative check up like pat-downs. However, there have been reports in some airports of some travelers being denied the chance to opt out of scanning. Most of the cases have been reported by blacks and members of the Islam religion. Terror attacks have been globally known to be mainly executed by people of certain religious and ethnic groups and therefore people from those groups are marginalized and are treated differently during searches even when they are obviously innocent. This is not only racial discrimination but also a violation of the human right of free will. This calls for an immediate ban of the use of body scanners in the airport security checks (Ridgeway, 2010). It has also been observed that in some airports, members of certain ethnic groups are forced to stand in the body scanning areas for longer than others. The scanners have provided evidence that the rate of suspicion is based on ethnicity. When the devices were being introduced, they were to be used on all travelers with equal suspicion. Contrary to popular belief, racial discrimination is not yet over and the electronic search devices are providing avenues for racism to be portrayed. They should therefore not be used (Ridgeway, 2010). There is no difference between full body scan imaging and forceful strip search. The electronic search devices have been employed to blanket the actual act of strip searching which is a violation to basic human rights since the search lacks a course. It can be argued out as a bid to see all travelers naked. It is not only embarrassing to the travelers being scanned but also to those viewing the images. The lack of age limits in the use of these devices means that even the old people are scanned. This is a moral degrading act when people view the private body parts of people old enough to be their parents (Ridgeway, 2010). The issue of the use of electronic search devices has affected many countries all over the world. For instance, a case of misappropriation of the images from the devices was reported in Lagos. The airport security men were reported to using the images as pornographic material and even forcing some women to go through the scanning process severally in order to satisfy their evil needs. Similar cases have been recorded where children images are used for children porn purposes. This should be enough proof for any government to banish the use of these electronic search devices in airports (Ridgeway, 2010). There have also been cases of travelers being harassed and assaulted by the security personnel when they opted out of the full body scan. Those who refuse to be scanned are treated harshly and are subjected to more suspicion. Some travelers have even been taken to the more intense search chambers in the airports where the security personnel tortures and harasses them. This mostly happens when people from specific ethnic groups opt out of the scanning process. Under the human rights act, every human being should be treated equally regardless of their ethnicity but the new electronic search devices compromise this right (Ridgeway, 2010). The full body scanning devices are not constitutional in many nations yet they are still being used. Their use is extremely invasive and their use compromises the human rights. In America for instance, the electronic search devices are being extensively used but the constitution does not give any legal grounds for the implementation of such intrusive technology. The constitution calls for ultimate observation of human rights act and rebukes any activity that compromises them. Although majority of the people voted for the use of body scanners to counter terrorism in America, the reality is that the majority voted for the violation of their basic human rights (Ridgeway, 2010). Not everyone should be subjected to full body scanning. Strip searching shouldn’t be conducted on people who haven’t done any wrong. It should be done when it is extremely requires, especially when other search methods point to a traveler as a potential danger. There are many alternatives to the invasive electronic search devices. For example, the implementation of metal detectors can work just fine. When anomalies are detected by the metal detector, then the traveler in question can be scanned for potential threatening material or weapons (Bloxham, 2010). There has been a controversy on whether the images taken by the scanners are saved for future purposes. The authorities in many airports claim that the devices are installed without the capability to save images. There have been cases whereby certain airports were found with saved images from security scans. Questions have also been raised on the efficiency of the scanning process since if the scanners don’t save the images, in case of a terror attack, then the devices cannot be of any help since they cannot be used to trace those who were scanned prior to the attacks. The devices do more harm than good to the society (Bloxham, 2010). Information from the Columbia University center of radiology research showed that the amount of radiation from the electronic devices being used is 20 times and over stronger than what is reported by the users. This information has been backed up with similar findings from calculations done by investigators from the University of California in San Francisco. The evidence implies that the scanning devices pose health hazards on pregnant women and children as well as the elderly. There are concerns that the high radiation may cause cancer in people and thorough research is underway in many institutions globally to investigate the risk posed by these electronic search devices. The World Health Organization is against pregnant women and children being exposed to radiation, however small it may be. One cannot miss the irony of the airports using unsafe devices to guarantee safety to the same people (Bloxham, 2010). Electronic search devices are subject to faults in their functioning. Just like there have been cases of equipments in the medical field malfunctioning and subjecting patients to lethal doses of radiation, the airport x-ray scanning devices could malfunction any time and cause irreversible damages to innocent human’s health. As the popular saying goes, prevention is better than cure. The devices should be banned to prevent future disasters. Under the human rights act, the right to life is highlighted and nothing or nobody should threaten it (Bloxham, 2010). The scanning machines have been found to be ineffective since they can be easily fooled. There is proof that a terrorist can easily fool the scanning devices by cunningly wrapping thin films of explosives on their skins and successfully go through the scanner undetected. The devices are not 100% effective and gambling with the benefit of doubt can be disastrous. This lack of ultimate effectiveness poses an even greater hazard of terror attacks since everyone has been made to believe that the new technology is impossible to fool. The devices should be expelled from airports and new efficient and ethically acceptable devices should be introduced (Bloxham, 2010). In a bid to assure the public that their privacy is being safeguarded, the U.S aviation Security has introduced software that masks the bare naked image of travelers from being seen by the crew in the control room in airports. The software converts the bare naked images taken by the scanners to mare female or male figures. This way, the security personnel have a limited view of the traveler’s nakedness as they go through the scanning area. The move is desperate and deceiving to the public since there is no proof whatsoever that the scanners don’t save the naked images of travelers. The software may only mask the immediate image but the security personnel can retrieve the actual images later (Bloxham, 2010). Proponents’ points Those who are for the use of electronic search devices claim that the devices provide a close to nil chance for terrorists to undertake their inhumane activities on air travelers. Many airports have installed the devices in a bid to beef up security in air travel and so far the devices have had a positive effect since cases of air travel terrorism have decreased. The installation of the devices has also had a positive effect on business in air travel since travelers have regained trust in their safety in airports and in airplanes. Since the terror attacks in America, most people developed flying phobias but lately they are facing their fears due to the guaranteed security (Etienne, 2010). The electronic search devices are a better option than the controversial pat-down system that arouses physical violation on human rights. The pat-down process of check up involves a lot of touching and most travelers have reported cases of inappropriate touching by the security personnel. Electronic devices like the metal detectors have come to resolve the touching issue. The body scanning devices are also very viable since they reveal the contents in the clothes of travelers and on their bodies. This is very advantageous to the security men since they can easily detect any terror material (Etienne, 2010). The proponents of the new technology being implemented in airports also claim that those who operate the equipments are professionals who observe high morals and social ethics. The security personnel are not concerned with the nude images of the travelers. They look past the naked pictures and look for weapons and dangerous material that the travelers might be possessing. The proponents claim that it is to the best of every traveler’s interest to know that their fellow passengers do not pose any threat to them. They however fail to explain why strip checking should be used while there are many other methods that can be efficiently used (Etienne, 2010). The proponents also claim that there should not be exceptions in the searches since anyone could be a terrorist regardless of gender, religion or age. They are blind to the violations to the human rights that some of these electronic devices make. They claim that since there is no substantial evidence of any health harmful effects of the radiation from the electronic gadgets, then there is no point of not using them. The truth is that research has shown that the radiation levels of the devices vary and they can produce hazardous amounts of x-rays that can potentially harm those subjected to it (Etienne, 2010). The implementation of the gadgets makes it impossible for the security persons to miss out on a terror suspect. During past years, the method of pat-downs was very inefficient because a terrorist could hide a weapon by aligning it with the contours of their body and pass the security men unnoticed. The new full body scan devices have eliminated this risk since the security personnel can see the entire body of the travelers and easily detect hidden weapons on their bodies (Etienne, 2010). There are also proponents who believe that it is better to give up a few human rights to uphold others. The right to life is particularly important and it is more valued by all humans. Without life, all the other human rights are irrelevant (Etienne, 2010). The proponents therefore do not view the electronic search devices as violators of their privacy rights but as life savers. They believe that the use of these gadgets will guarantee travelers safety and minimize terror attacks in their countries since there will be no possible ways of terrorists penetrating to their nations through the airports. It is a sacrifice that everyone has to make to safeguard their nations and the world in general. Some of those who are for the use of the electronic gadgets are the victims of terror. They are the people who have had experiences with terror attacks and lost their loved ones and valuable property. These people would do anything to stop terror attacks and they are very ready to accept the electronic search devices since they have brought the world a step further towards eliminating terror. It would be difficult to explain to such people who are passionately against terror how the devices violate their rights while at the same time securing their lives (Etienne, 2010). Some scientists believe that the amount of radiation that is produced by the newly introduced electronic search devices is not sufficient enough to harm anybody. They claim that the radiation hits the skin and is reflected back to form the image and that none of the radiation penetrates the human body. However, there have been researches that have proved that the radiations can penetrate the human skin and can possibly cause cancer. People with implanted medical gadgets like pacemakers that are near the skin surface can also be affected by the radiations (Etienne, 2010). Conclusion The use of electronic search devices in airports a great achievement in the part of the world’s growing technology. It has made it very easy to detect terror suspects and it is expected to completely eradicate air travel terrorism. However, the modes of searching that these electronic search devices are using are violating to basic human rights, especially the privacy right. They also subject the travelers to potential dangerous radiations. Studies have shown that these radiations can harm children and pregnant women and their unborn babies as well as the male genitals. The viewing of another person’s private parts without their consent is unethical and violating. The devices should either be improved to stop violating human rights or completely banned from the airports. There is no logic in safeguarding the human right to life by violating other human rights. That would be hypocritical and deception to the public. References Bloxham, Andy (2010). Airport body scanners 'could give you cancer. London: The Telegraph. Etienne, Lombard (2010). Bombing Out: Using Full-Body Imaging To Conduct Airport Searches in the United States and Europe Amidst Privacy Concerns. Tulane Journal of International & Comparative Law, 19(1), 337-367. Ridgeway, James. (2010). The Airport Scanner Scam. Mother Jones. Retrieved from: http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2010/01/airport-scanner-scam Savage, David G. (2010). The fight against full-body scanners at airports. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from: http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jan/13/nation/la-na-terror- privacy13-2010jan13 Read More