The Use of Advanced Imaging Technology in the US Airports - Research Paper Example

On July 20, the US Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano, announced that advanced imaging (body scanning) technology would be rolled outat 28 airports across the USA. Critically evaluate the validity of using this type of equipment. In particular address the possible privacy violations that may flow from using this technology. STUDENT NAME STUDENT NUMBER YEAR, SEMESTER Advanced imaging (body scanning) technology has been one of the most controversial security issues of modern times. People are wondering if the technology will lead to a loss of privacy due to the invasive nature of the images, and others are wondering if they are really necessary for maximum security protection. These body imaging scanners can be found in several areas of the security industry, including in commercial loss prevention and in government buildings that require an extra level of security. However, one of the most popularly discussed usages of the technology is in airports, and in 2010 it was announced that these would be put into use at 28 airports in the United States, including New Yorks JFK and Fort Lauderdale International. The use of these has been defended by the US Homeland Security Secretary, who says that these will severely reduce incidences of smuggling, terrorism and on-flight crime. The following essay will discuss the technology in detail, including full details on the benefits that these machines can bring to the security industry. Following this, the privacy concerns which have been raised will be covered, as will the health issues that have been linked to the machines. Particular focus will be on the privacy concerns that have been dominating the media with regards to this technology, as it is a particularly pressing issue for those who feel we may be lapsing into a Big Brother state, as well as those who feel uncomfortable with the use and possible storage of these images. The Technology Body scanning technology is based on the principle of the millimeter wave. Most materials used for clothing are transparent when viewed under this frequency of radio band, and images taken by these scanners will therefore show any concealed objects that may not be evident to the naked eye. The scanners come in two forms, known as active and passive. The passive form is one that uses the natural energy emitted from objects, and is generally considered to be as safe as a digital camera for the person being photographed. The active scanners rely on directing these millimeter radio waves at the object and then reading the energy which has been directed back (Laskey, 2010). This is then translated into a photograph that can be analyzed for any concealed goods or weapons. They also let security see details such as prosthetic breasts and testicles, colostomy bags, pacemakers and other medical equipment. The technology consists of a walk-through machine, not dissimilar in looks to the standard metal detector deployed in almost all airports in the United States. The customer walks through the machine and stands still for 15 seconds whilst the waves are bounced from the body and converted into an image which can then be assessed by airport security personnel to see if there any concealed objects on the body (McQuain, 2010). The individual can then be subjected to further checks, taken away for questioning or pass through to the flight boarding area immediately after the check is complete. Benefits of Body Scanning One of the main benefits of this body scanning technology is its speed. The photographs can be created in under 15 seconds, which is much faster than the comparable but less technologically-advanced full body strip search or even the “pat-down” method (McQuain, 2010). This speed ensures that people can get through airport security quickly and safely, as well as reducing the number of people that need to work at airport security. This speed also means that any smugglers or terrorists can be found sooner, reducing any danger within the airport itself. Another benefit of the technology is that many people find strip-searches and the pat-down method employed in airport security invasive. They both involve touching that many people find offensive when coming from a stranger. Despite all the privacy concerns raised by the full body scanning technology, it does mean that this inappropriate physical touching is avoided in many situations. In fact, it has been revealed that 57% of travelers in a recent survey have said they would feel angry or bothered by the prospect of a full-body pat-down in an airport before flying (McQuain, 2010). Of course, the reason that these body scanning machines have been put in place is that they are a very effective way of seeing any concealed weapons, drugs or other forbidden items. These are in place in over 28 United States airports and numerous others worldwide, and have been said to have prevented over 100 incidences of smuggling and possible terrorism in their first year of use, additionally to an estimate of those that would have been uncovered using the more traditional methods (McLachlan, 2010). This suggests that this technology is somewhat useful, although perhaps the number is not large enough for those who have concerns about the use and misuse of these scanners. Another major benefit is that these machines can be used for everyone, because they do not use pat-downs that may be offensive to people of some religions, and they operate quickly enough to prevent extra queues in airports. This has the huge benefit of reducing the need for profiling in airports, a technique that essentially takes a stereotypical terrorist or smuggler and only subjects individuals in this category to full-body checks. Whilst this has been shown to be more effective than random checks, it can be offensive to innocent people who feel they have been profiled. The full-body scanner can also be compared to those metal detectors that are already in place in most airports in an attempt to detect metallic bombs, knives, guns and other weaponry. The benefit of the full body scanner in this regard is that they can detect objects made from all material, including many varieties of plastic. This has the benefit of being more useful in an era where technological advances mean that almost any material could theoretically be used in a terrorist attack. It also helps find those individuals who are smuggling drugs, stolen or banned goods into the country, which would not show up on a metal detector. Privacy Concerns The most common concern that comes up in the discussion of this technology is that it could lead to a loss of privacy in the airport setting. All airports have said that they will not save the images that have been created by the machines within their airports (McQuain, 2010) but this has been shown to not be true on several occasions. There have also been incidences when airport staff have been found to be misusing the full body scanner for their own personal gains, and in some cases have been found to be taking and distributing the images (McLachlan, 2010). They give the operator a tremendous amount of power that is unrivaled; it allows them to see you naked without you giving permission for them to do so. This can be linked to several complains about the government turning into a Big Brother figure. Although it gives the operator a tremendous amount of power, concerns are more likely to lie with the fact that these machines are technically operated by the government, who are free to do what they wish with the information they provide. The government having a naked image of an individual on file is something that causes a lot of concern amongst a lot of people (McQuain, 2010), perhaps even more so than the capturing and data basing of fingerprints. This is perhaps because, in the view of many, has no right to know what an individual looks like naked, much less have the capability and potential to use these images in any situation. Those who are in positions of power have even more to worry about. Celebrities and politicians have much more to lose from these machines than others, as the loss of privacy here could translate into their sale to public magazines, or worse, blackmail. This is a problem that has not been widely addressed in the debates of this technology but is obviously an issue for those who already have privacy issues. The sale of these images could generate vast profits for someone who worked in an airport like New Yorks JFK which deals with a number of these individuals on a daily basis. Confidentiality agreements are signed (McQuain, 2010) but if the perpetrator managed to distribute these images anonymously there could be a huge profit involved. Another concern with regard to privacy is that they inspect those who are not likely to commit a crime. Although, as previously mentioned, this technology does stop the occasionally xenophobic use of profiling, it does seem unnecessary to subject millions of people to this privacy invasion daily. It could be seen as a punishment, and many of those who are innocent will be subjected to this. Again, there are concerns that the government could be compiling information on innocent people where it is not necessary for any reason but the desire to keep tabs on the citizens of the United States. However, it must be said that using the technology on everyone is a way to keep the airport security measures fair and just and this quick mechanism is one of the only ways that this can be ensured. Another issue with regards to privacy is that it is against the doctrine of some religions. Many Muslim women, for example, are required to cover up completely in public, only being seen in anything less by their husband (and other male relatives when younger). The airport personnel who are operating this machinery are in a separate room, which helps to preserve some aspects of privacy, as it will prevent the association of an image with an identity. However, it does mean that some groups of people, such as Muslim women, may feel more uncomfortable because they cannot be sure that the person viewing the image is male or female. The final issue that will be discussed here is the idea that these images can be viewed wrongly in a sexual context. They have been described as a peep-show for the airport personnel operating the machine and could be used as part of sexual misconduct. However, these views are slightly unfounded because the quality of the imagery is fairly bad when compared with typical pornographic images, with only outlines of bodily features being evident. The images produced have been described as ghost-like (Eze, 2010) by many supporters of the screen, and realistically these scans would be very unlikely to be used in any kind of sexual scene. Additionally, the faces and body outlines can be obscured by many of the existing machines (McLachlan, 2010) which adds another level of identity and privacy protection to the scan as well as reducing the likelihood of misuse even further. Another point to make is that the technology is continuously improving and being adapted to make it the most appropriate for airport security measures. For example, some machinery can be altered to ensure that the images cannot be saved, which would be an added reassurance to many. Another point is that there are software options available that can actually detect concealed weapons and other objects without the need for airport personnel to actually view the images (McQuain, 2010). This means that actually, in many cases, the images could theoretically not be viewed or stored by anyone, removing all privacy concerns. However, this technology has not been fully implemented as of yet and cannot be found or guaranteed in any US airport. Child Pornography Concerns A major part of the debate focuses on the fact that children have to pass through these machines as part of standard airport check-ups. As mentioned before, these scanners supposedly do not save the images, although this has been proven untrue on several occasions (Eze, 2010). There is also the point that the law on child pornography states that it is against the law to create such images, let alone view or distribute them. In this case, the body scanning machines are, in fact, in violation of the law. There is also the risk that these images could be saved and distributed across the internet to those individuals who peruse child porn. As the availability of such material becomes less, it may be more common to see these images playing a huge role in the industry. The points raised about personal privacy above are also valid in this case, however. The images are ghost-like and grainy, and they can be obscured further if the need arises. This means that, whilst the images are images of children, it will not be immediately obvious and would not pose any real threat to the childrens safety because they simply do not look like children. It is also possible that the machines could be avoided in the case of children, who are unlikely to commit any serious offences, although this does bring back some of the issues associated with profiling. Possible Health Effects As with any technology that uses radiation, there are concerns about radiation poisoning and cancer risks. Statistics have shown that it is likely that at least one person will get cancer from such a machine (Wald, 2010) although it could be said that if the technology has prevented one plane from being victim of a terrorist attack then it has saved lives regardless of this cancer case. However, there are alternatives that do not use any radiation (see below). It is impossible to know the exact long-term implications of such technology, but at this stage it has been shown that there are minimal risks involved. They emit less radiation than natural sources. They also emit less radiation than a standard medical X-ray (Wald, 2010), to which everyone is subjected to at some point during the life-span. It could be debated that X-rays occur on a rare basis, and a regular flier could amass high levels of radiation from these machines being used on a weekly or even daily basis. At this stage the complications of this build-up are unknown, but experts seem to suggest that there is little danger involved (Halperin, 2006). Alternatives Whilst there are many security alternatives that have been used in the industry for decades, such as the pat-down and the traditional metal detector, technology is advancing at such a speed that more are arriving on the market everyday. One such alternative is known as the puffer, and it relies on forceful streams of air blowing on passengers to dislodge any concealed weapons or drugs. This has its own set of advantages and disadvantages, but does not compromise privacy in the same way as the full body scanner (Halperin, 2006). Conclusion In conclusion, it is evident that the debate on the validity of these machines is a valuable one. There are many pros and cons to using these machines, as outlined above. Most of the issues concerning the validity are discussions about if the actual crime-prevention aspects of the machinery are worth all the losses in personal privacy, not to mention the possible but as yet not explored fully affects on health. These problems have led to several discussions from both side on how useful and valid these machines are in the context of airport security. One of the most disturbing aspects of the discussion is related to child pornography, one of the most widely abhorred crimes and one that could be linked fairly easily to machines such as this. However, there are ways to get around the problems created by this machine in this context, and many of the fears have been shown to be unfounded. The health issues are similar, in that there is no conclusive proof that these machines cause long-lasting damage, although there is no proof that they do not as yet. An interesting debate, then, with many different aspects all adding different viewpoints and increasing or decreasing the validity of the body scanning machinery. In this case, it seems that there are more negative points, particularly with respect to privacy. However, whilst this may be the case in the eyes of many, the installation of these machines at many US airports means that they are unlikely to vanish from the security industry anytime soon and may be causing heated debates for years to come. Works Cited Eze, Chinedu, 2010. Now Showing at MMIA: Nude Images of Passengers. `AllAfrica`.`com`. Available at: http://allafrica.com/stories/201009210101.html. Halperin, A., 2006. Airport Security Goes High-Tech. BusinessWeek: Technology. Available at: http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/aug2006/tc20060810_208055.htm [Accessed September 30, 2011]. Laskey, M., 2010. House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Transportation Security & Infrastructure Protection. In An Assessment of Checkpoint Security: Are Our Airports Keeping Passengers Safe? Available at: http://homeland.house.gov/SiteDocuments/20100317140311-88574.pdf. McLachlan, S., 2010. Body scanners used as porn by airport security. Gadling.com. Available at: http://www.gadling.com/2010/09/28/body-scanners-used-as-porn-by-airport-security/. McQuain, B., 2010. TSA and America’s Attitudes. Available at: http://www.qando.net/?tag=full-body-scanner [Accessed September 28, 2011]. Wald, M.L., 2010. Cancer Risks Debated for Type of X-Ray Scan. The New York Times. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/09/health/09scanner.html [Accessed September 30, 2011]. Read More