Airport privacy

Last updated

Airport privacy involves the right of personal privacy for passengers when it comes to screening procedures, surveillance, and personal data being stored at airports. This practice intertwines airport security measures and privacy specifically the advancement of security measures following the 9/11 attacks in the United States and other global terrorist attacks. Several terrorist attacks, such as 9/11, have led airports all over the world to look to the advancement of new technology such as body and baggage screening, detection dogs, facial recognition, and the use of biometrics in electronic passports. [1] [2] Amidst the introduction of new technology and security measures in airports and the growing rates of travelers there has been a rise of risk and concern in privacy. [3]

Contents

History of airport policies

Before the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the only security measure in place in U.S. airports were metal detectors. A metal detector's ability to only detect metal weapons made it inefficient in detecting nonmetals such as liquids, sharp objects, or explosives. [4] After the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the United States, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) increased security measures all over the airports. Policies were made to prohibit the carry on of liquids, sharp objects, and explosives. Airlines instructed passengers to arrive 2 hours before their flight is to depart if traveling domestically and 3 hours if traveling internationally. After passing through screening, passengers were selected at random for additional screening including bag checks. After an incident, that involved a passenger carrying a bomb in their shoe, security screeners asked passengers to remove their shoes when passing through checkpoints. [1] In February 2002, the TSA officially took over the responsibility for airport security. In 2009, airport security measures were once again shaken when a passenger, now commonly known as the "underwear bomber," smuggled a bomb into the airport facility in his underwear. [1] Before these terrorist attacks, only 5 percent of bags were screened. Following these attacks, all bags were subject to screening. [1]

In 2008, the European Union considered the use of full body scanners to overcome the challenges with metal detectors in not being able to detect nonmetal weapons and also the challenge of pat-downs. [4] The European commission came to the consensus that passengers must have an option to decline body scanning.[ citation needed ]

Technology and privacy

Body screening

Screening Technology has advanced to detect any harmful materials under a traveler's clothes and also detect any harmful materials that may have been consumed internally. Full body scanners or Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) were introduced to U.S. Airports in 2006. [5] Two types of body screening that are currently being used at all airports internationally are backscatters and millimeter wave scanners. Backscatters use a high-speed yet thin intensity x-ray beam to portray the digital image of an individual's body. [6] [7] Millimeter wave scanners uses the millimeter waves to create a 3-D image based on the energy reflected from the individual's body.

In June 2010, the TSA's commissioners report regulated that screening must follow a framework to ensure fundamental rights and health provisions for travelers. [8] Members of particular groups including disabled people, transgender people, older people, children, women and religious groups have experienced additional negative effects on privacy. On April 15, 2010, a letter from the TSA stated that the TSA had in their possession about 2000 body scanned photos from devices that they claimed were unable to store data/images. [8] [9]

Alternative security measures are offered to travelers who wish to opt out-of-body screening. The United States and European Union allow a traveler the option of refusing screening procedures and instead go through a pat-down. However, if a traveler refuses the pat-down then they are refused entry to the secure area of the airport terminal.

Baggage screening

Baggage screening conducted by a TSA official VTBS-luggage screening-2.jpg
Baggage screening conducted by a TSA official

Baggage screening of all bags entering the airport wasn't implemented until after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Carry on bags typically go through two stages of inspection: an X-ray screening of the contents in the bag and a manual inspection by a Security Screening Operator (SSO). [10] A manual inspection is only necessary if a SSO has doubts of the contents in the bags. After security checkpoints, carry on bags can be inspected further through random searches and checked in bags are screened for explosives or other dangerous items before being sent out to a passenger's respective flight.

Sniffer dogs/detection dogs

Detection dogs are utilized all over airports specifically in baggage claim sections. The role of a detection dog is to prevent any substance such as illegal drugs or explosives to further enter the facility or leave it. The accuracy and physical capacity of these dogs has raised concerns and has led to the creation of sniffer devices. Similarly to dogs, this device also known as "chemical sniffers" or "electronic noses" is used to detect any trace of drugs and explosives. [11] Odor, although not commonly thought to be connected with an individual's privacy, is unique to every individual. Every individual has a characteristic odor known as the “body odor signature” which can be used to identify gender, sexual orientation, health, diet, and so on. It can reveal emotions like fear and happiness and is viewed as a biological footprint. [11]

In the Lopez Ostra v Spain, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that odor does in fact have an effect on privacy and human rights. [11]

Camera surveillance and the future of facial recognition

Surveillance cameras are placed strategically around airports to ensure the safety of everyone. An increase in camera surveillance then calls for an increase amount of personally stored data. A human machine interface is controlled by a person who operates the surveillance system to assess a situation. The operator is in control of the cameras and determines where the person will appear on the next camera. [12] Facial recognition is an emerging technology measure for airport security. Facial recognition has made its way to camera surveillance. A study done at The Palm Beach airport showed that the false alarm rate of face recognition surveillance was fairly low and had a success rate of almost 50% when it came to matching. [2] The use of facial recognition during the Super Bowl brought up concerns in connection to the Fourth Amendment. [2]

Facial profiling

In 2003, in an effort to improve the detection of terrorist threat, the TSA introduced the Screening Passengers by Observation Technique (SPOT). [13] SPOT is a behavioral recognition system that looks at the way people conduct themselves through facial expressions and body movement. TSA Behavior Detection Officers (TBO) are stationed at airport security checkpoints and keep an eye out for behavior from travelers that may give off any suspicion of malice. [13] SPOT has been highly critiqued for the times it has been used to misidentify a threat causing intrusive searches on travelers based on a hunch that a TSA official has. [13]

eGates (Automated Border Control) in Gatwick South terminal GAT South eGates.JPG
eGates (Automated Border Control) in Gatwick South terminal

Biometric systems

Biometrics are human characteristics that are unique to every individual and that usually do not change such as fingerprints, speech, face, etc. [14] Electronic gates, also known as e-gates, have become very common in airports because of their ability to verify travelers based on their biometric information. There are two types of privacy concerns when discussing e-gates, one is general privacy and the other is system-specific privacy. System-specific privacy focuses on beliefs regarding the capability of the system to protect privacy. Europe is the first to have introduced e-gates in their airport facilities, and the future of airport technology for the United States points toward e-gates.

In the United States, there are two registered travel programs: the Register Travel (RT) system and the Global Entry (GE) System. These programs are designed to expedite immigration procedures for trusted travelers and are primarily based on fingerprint recognition. [15]

Legality and precedence

The Fourth Amendment

The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures while also ensuring the protection of an individual's privacy. The relationship between airport security measures such as screening and pat-downs has sparked a controversial debate when it comes to the Fourth Amendment. As security measures heightened following the 9/11 attacks, many travelers have voiced their opinion that these new measures are in violation of the Fourth Amendment. [9] However, airport officials have responded by claiming that screening measures and pat-downs are not seen to violate the Fourth Amendment because these procedures can be made into a condition when a traveler is purchasing airline tickets. [6] In addition, the Fourth Amendment does not create an absolute right to privacy against all intrusive searches instead the constitutionality of a search is highly based on reasonableness and security. [6]

The Privacy Act of 1974 protects personal information when it is being processed by the federal government. [8]

The following cases provide examples to court rulings on intrusive searches:

United States v. Montoya de Hernandez

United States v. Montoya de Hernandez (1985) ruled that an individual can be subject to an intrusive search, such as a body cavity, if authorities see it fit for the safety of others or themselves. [6] This ruling coincides with the fact that a person is subject to additional screening at any point throughout the airport if airport authorities feel it is necessary or suspect the risk of safety.[ citation needed ]

Illinois v. Caballes and United States v. Place

The US Supreme Court ruled in Illinois v. Caballes (2005) and United States v. Place (1983) that warrantless searches such as dog searches can be acted upon an individual without the need of suspicion. [6] In airports, detection dogs conduct searches on passengers throughout the facility by having them sniff on a passenger's baggage at baggage claim sections.[ citation needed ] [16]

United States v. Guapi

United States v. Guapi (1998) ruled that the police did not effectively communicate that the search was optional to the suspect. [6] This type of issue occurs regularly in airports when a traveler is unaware of their privacy rights when it comes to unreasonable searches or alternative search methods available.[ citation needed ]

Texas and the Tenth Amendment

Following the implementation of enhanced pat downs in airports, the state of Texas challenged federal power by passing two bills into state legislature that would criminalize TSA officials from conducting these pat downs on travelers. [5] Texas argued that the Tenth Amendment, which reserves all remaining power, not delegated to the federal government, to the state and people, allowed them to ensure police powers to protect citizens within their state. However, in 2011, U.S Department of Justice Murphy used the Supremacy Clause to argue that airport security is part of federal domain and cannot be controlled or changed by states laws. [5]

See also

Related Research Articles

After the September 11 attacks, there was an immediate call to action regarding the state of aviation security measures as the hijackers involved in 9/11 were able to successfully pass through security and take command of the plane. The existing security measures flagged more than half of the 19 hijackers in 9/11; however, they were cleared to board the plane because their bags were not found to contain any explosives. In the months and years following September 11, 2001, security at many airports worldwide were reformed to deter similar terrorist plots.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Transportation Security Administration</span> United States federal government agency

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is an agency of the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that has authority over the security of transportation systems within, and connecting to, the United States. It was created as a response to the September 11 attacks to improve airport security procedures and consolidate air travel security under a combined federal law enforcement and regulatory agency.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Airport security</span> Measures to prevent crime at an airport

Airport security includes the techniques and methods used in an attempt to protect passengers, staff, aircraft, and airport property from malicious harm, crime, terrorism, and other threats.

The Computer-Assisted Passenger Prescreening System (CAPPS) is a counter-terrorism system in place in the United States air travel industry that matches passenger information with other data sources. The United States Transportation Security Administration (TSA) maintains a watchlist, pursuant to 49 USC § 114 (h)(2), of "individuals known to pose, or suspected of posing, a risk of air piracy or terrorism or a threat to airline or passenger safety." The list is used to pre-emptively identify terrorists attempting to buy airline tickets or board aircraft traveling in the United States, and to mitigate perceived threats.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Facial recognition system</span> Technology capable of matching a face from an image against a database of faces

A facial recognition system is a technology potentially capable of matching a human face from a digital image or a video frame against a database of faces. Such a system is typically employed to authenticate users through ID verification services, and works by pinpointing and measuring facial features from a given image.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Registered Traveler</span>

A registered traveler is a person qualified through an airline passenger security assessment system in the United States air travel industry. Such programs were initially tested in 2005. Registered traveler programs are currently in operation in various airports around the country and are administered by TTAC, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) office responsible for Secure Flight, the replacement for the Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System (CAPPS) and the canceled CAPPS II counter-terrorism system.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Backscatter X-ray</span> Advanced X-ray imaging technology

Backscatter X-ray is an advanced X-ray imaging technology. Traditional X-ray machines detect hard and soft materials by the variation in x-ray intensity transmitted through the target. In contrast, backscatter X-ray detects the radiation that reflects from the target. It has potential applications where less-destructive examination is required, and can operate even if only one side of the target is available for examination.

Security theater is the practice of implementing security measures that are considered to provide the feeling of improved security while doing little or nothing to achieve it.

An explosives trace-detection portal machine, also known as a trace portal machine and commonly known as a puffer machine, is a security device that seeks to detect explosives and illegal drugs at airports and other sensitive facilities as a part of airport security screening. The machines are intended as a secondary screening device, used as a complement to, rather than a substitute for, traditional X-ray machines.

The CTX is an explosive detection device, a family of x-ray devices developed by InVision Technologies in 1990 that uses CAT scans and sophisticated image processing software to automatically screen checked baggage for explosives.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Secondary Security Screening Selection</span> Airport security measure in the United States

Secondary Security Screening Selection or Secondary Security Screening Selectee, known by its initials SSSS, is an airport security measure in the United States which selects passengers for additional inspection. People from certain countries are subject to it by default. The passengers may be known as Selectee, Automatic Selectee or the Selectee list. The size and contents of the list fluctuates and is a secret, although the Transportation Security Administration has stated there are tens of thousands of names on it.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Full body scanner</span> Device which detects objects in or around a persons body

A full-body scanner is a device that detects objects on or inside a person's body for security screening purposes, without physically removing clothes or making physical contact. Unlike metal detectors, full-body scanners can detect non-metal objects, which became an increasing concern after various airliner bombing attempts in the 2000s. Some scanners can also detect swallowed items or items hidden in the body cavities of a person. Starting in 2007, full-body scanners started supplementing metal detectors at airports and train stations in many countries.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Millimeter wave scanner</span> Body screening device

A millimeter wave scanner is a whole-body imaging device used for detecting objects concealed underneath a person’s clothing using a form of electromagnetic radiation. Typical uses for this technology include detection of items for commercial loss prevention, smuggling, and screening for weapons at government buildings and airport security checkpoints.

In the United States, border security includes the protection of ports, airports, and the country's 3,017-mile (4,855 km) land border with Canada and 1,933-mile (3,111 km) border with Mexico.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Future Attribute Screening Technology</span> Surveillance program

Future Attribute Screening Technology (FAST) is a program created by the Department of Homeland Security. It was originally titled Project Hostile Intent. The purpose is to detect "Mal Intent" by screening people for "psychological and physiological indicators" in a "Mobile Screening Laboratory".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Don't touch my junk</span> Phrase

"Don't touch my junk" is a phrase that became popular in the United States in 2010 as a criticism of Transportation Security Administration (TSA) patdowns. The word "junk" is American English slang for a man's genitals. The phrase refers to the offense many people took to the November 2010 decision by TSA to begin full body patdowns of airline passengers in the U.S. who refused to go through a full body scanner.

Airport racial profiling in the United States is U.S. government activity directed at a suspect or group of suspects because of their race or ethnicity. Under Fourth Amendment analysis, objective factors measure whether law enforcement action is constitutional, and under the Fourteenth Amendment challenges to the practice are assessed under the customary strict scrutiny test for racial classifications.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response team</span>

A Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response team, sometimes Visible Intermodal Protection and Response (VIPR) is a Transportation Security Administration program. Various government sources have differing descriptions of VIPR's exact mission. It is specifically authorized by 6 U.S.C. § 1112 which says that the program is to "augment the security of any mode of transportation at any location within the United States". Authority for the program is under the Secretary of Homeland Security. The program falls under TSA's Office of Law Enforcement/Federal Air Marshal Service. TSA OLE/FAMS shares responsibility for the program with the Office of Security Operations and Transportation Sector Network Management.

Clear Secure, Inc. is an American technology company that operates biometric travel document verification systems at some major airports and stadiums.

Behavior Detection and Analysis (BDA), until 2016 called Screening of Passengers by Observation Techniques (SPOT), is a program launched in the United States by the Transportation Security Administration to identify potential terrorists among people at an airport by a set of 94 objective criteria, all of which are signs for either stress, fear, or deception. Passengers meeting enough of the criteria are, under the program, referred for a patdown and additional screening. The criteria were initially secret, but in March 2015, The Intercept published them after obtaining the information from an anonymous source.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 Blalock, Garrick; Kadiyali, Vrinda; Simon, Daniel H. (2007). "The Impact of Post‐9/11 Airport Security Measures on the Demand for Air Travel". The Journal of Law and Economics. 50 (4): 731–755. doi:10.1086/519816. ISSN   0022-2186. S2CID   681649.
  2. 1 2 3 Bowyer, K.W. (2004). "Face recognition technology: security versus privacy". IEEE Technology and Society Magazine. 23 (1): 9–19. doi:10.1109/mtas.2004.1273467. ISSN   0278-0097. S2CID   1031237.
  3. ↑ Beck, Matthew J.; Rose, John M.; Merkert, Rico (2017-04-20). "Exploring Perceived Safety, Privacy, and Distrust on Air Travel Choice in the Context of Differing Passenger Screening Procedures". Journal of Travel Research. 57 (4): 495–512. doi:10.1177/0047287517700316. ISSN   0047-2875. S2CID   157431216.
  4. 1 2 DENENBERG, R. V. (1974). "Administrative Searches and the Right to Privacy in the United States". International and Comparative Law Quarterly. 23 (1): 169–178. doi:10.1093/iclqaj/23.1.169. ISSN   0020-5893.
  5. 1 2 3 Ellis, Cali M.; McDaniel, Michael C. (2013-01-01). "Texas takes on the TSA: The Constitutional Fight over Airport Security". Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management. 10 (1). doi:10.1515/jhsem-2012-0068. ISSN   1547-7355. S2CID   110570473.
  6. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Mackey, David A. (June 2007). "The 'X‐Rated X‐Ray': Reconciling Fairness, Privacy, and Security". Criminal Justice Studies. 20 (2): 149–159. doi:10.1080/14786010701396889. ISSN   1478-601X. S2CID   154755609.
  7. ↑ Chen, Kuan-Wei (2010). "Stripped and safer? Issues of privacy and security surrounding the full body scanner". Annals of Air and Space Law. 1: 231–263.
  8. 1 2 3 Mironenko, Olga (June 2011). "Body scanners versus privacy and data protection". Computer Law & Security Review. 27 (3): 232–244. doi:10.1016/j.clsr.2011.03.006. ISSN   0267-3649. S2CID   19855062.
  9. 1 2 Hanson, Heather L. (1993). "The Fourth Amendment in the Workplace: Are We Really Being Reasonable?". Virginia Law Review. 79 (1): 243–274. doi:10.2307/1073411. ISSN   0042-6601. JSTOR   1073411.
  10. ↑ Skorupski, Jacek; Uchroński, Piotr (May 2015). "A fuzzy reasoning system for evaluating the efficiency of cabin baggage screening at airports". Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies. 54: 157–175. doi:10.1016/j.trc.2015.03.017. ISSN   0968-090X.
  11. 1 2 3 Bonfanti, Matteo E. (2014-02-12). "From Sniffer Dogs to Emerging Sniffer Devices for Airport Security: An Opportunity to Rethink Privacy Implications?". Science and Engineering Ethics. 20 (3): 791–807. doi:10.1007/s11948-014-9528-x. ISSN   1353-3452. PMID   24519533. S2CID   12561077.
  12. ↑ Bouma, Henri; van Rest, Jeroen; van Buul-Besseling, Kim; de Jong, Jacomien; Havekes, Anton (March 2016). "Integrated roadmap for the rapid finding and tracking of people at large airports". International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection. 12: 61–74. doi:10.1016/j.ijcip.2015.11.002. ISSN   1874-5482.
  13. 1 2 3 Herbert, Lenese (2017). "Othello Error: Facial profiling, privacy, and the suppression of dissent". Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law. 1: 79–129.
  14. ↑ Morosan, Cristian (2017-05-29). "Information Disclosure to Biometric E-gates: The Roles of Perceived Security, Benefits, and Emotions". Journal of Travel Research. 57 (5): 644–657. doi:10.1177/0047287517711256. ISSN   0047-2875. S2CID   157417851.
  15. ↑ Morosan, Cristian (2011-11-03). "Voluntary Steps toward Air Travel Security". Journal of Travel Research. 51 (4): 436–450. doi:10.1177/0047287511418368. ISSN   0047-2875. S2CID   154478452.
  16. ↑ Rogers, John. "Bombs, Borders, and Boarding: Combatting International Terrorism at United States Airports and the Fourth Amendment". Suffolk Transnat'l L.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.