Body Scanners and the Constitution

There has been an increasing concern toward the application of body scanners at the airport. The main question revolving around this issue is whether the constitutional rights of civilians are well provided for. Significant opposition has fumed both from the personal privacy advocates and the general members of the public concerning the use of body scanners at the airport. The idea of using body scanners at the airport comes after the attempt by an alleged bomber in setting off explosives that were in his underwear during a flight to the U.S from the Europe (Malinari, 62). Following this incident, airport officials in some other parts of Europe and U.S are declaring it mandatory for the travelers to be scanned the entire body in an effort to curb terrorism.

In the U.S, there are currently 19 airports applying up to 40 whole-body scanners and the Transport and Security Administration (TSA) is further stressing that more full-body scanners need to be bought to beat the demand of the gadgets. In an interview with the Chicago Tribune, the TSA spokesman, Greg Soule identified that the scanners considerably improve the effort to curb terrorism because the gadgets can significantly detect any metallic and no-metallic objects which are easily kept in the underwear by most terrorists (Knusden, 2010). Answering various questions from the protests over the issue of privacy, Seole defended the TSA that it was absolutely optional for all the passengers to be scanned in whichever manner they chose.

The full-body scanners are usually tall telephone stalls or boxes usually the size of a toilet where air travelers stand before the machine for a maximum of 10seconds in order to get screened of any metallic or non-metallic objects they could be carrying in their underwear. The scan produces a black and white image of the entire body of the air traveler undergoing the scan. The image of the body is clearly produced but the face is blurred for concealing the identity which is only known to the Security Agencies at the airport. The technicians at the airport performing the scans usually sit in a separate room from the person undergoing a scan. This way, the technicians are not able to see the individual they are scanning but are rather concealed. What they receive is a mere black and white but a clear image of a naked person.

The issue of viewing a naked person in the name of security scans has been opposed by several lawmakers and other privacy advocates. The issue has raised eyebrows among the public concerning the constitutional provisions of privacy denial in the event of scanning the air travelers. For instance, the American Civil Liberties Union including some other lobby groups have strongly opposed the practice of exposing the nudity of individuals (Ely, Craig, 11). The union and lobby groups have termed the practice as an invasion into someones personal privacy and have expressed their fears that the image obtained could be used in the wrong way. The extent to which the scanners are used to examine air travelers has been exaggerated and opponents of this method have termed the procedure as one of the most humiliating one in history. They claim that such a thing could be unlikely to happen in a free country such as U.S and the U.K. it is a violation of privacy rights since the scanners have a potential to even tell whether someone is putting on a private medical device or wearing a diaper for adults. Politicians have not supported the procedure either and significant opposition has been felt even in the white house. For instance, in 2008, the Republican of Utah, Rep. Jason Chaffetz strongly opposed the application of scanners in the screening of air traveler. He moved a step further to even co-author a bill in parliament which would block the government from using the scanners in mass numbers (Covey, et al, 16). Chaffetz maintained that the security agents do not have to look at the naked bodies of the old grandmothers and the young girls in order to maintain security and stability in the state. He added that the government should not compromise the peoples personal privacy for the sake of security.

The results from the survey which was done in the U.S, shows that a majority of Americans support the scans posing a shocking possibility of a failure to fight this vice of exposing the nudity of Americans. One of the reasons attributed to this significant support is the promised security which the scanners are intended to provide at the airport. It may seem however logical because security is a major concern in America and any effort by the government to provide means of mitigating terrorism would receive enormous support. The fear has accumulated in the minds of Americans up to a situation where the people of the United States  are more than ready to give up their personal privacy for security which is just promised and not been provided.

How could this balance be stricken Can we balance the benefits which will be realized through maintaining the Americans privacy and keeping the national security Tension has been building up since the September 11 attack during the Bush administration in 2001. This terrorist attack has made the majority of Americans to prioritize the national security even if it means they are going to compromise their privacy. Making it worse, majority of Americans have proposed that there be a mechanism to obtain as much evidence as possible from the terrorists through the process of wiretapping (Segelken, 272).

Technologies like SIGINT can well be used to track the terrorists communication systems but the scans in the airport are a personal privacy violation to the extreme. In 2001, the PATRIOT Act was passed in parliament and it provided for the weakening of restrictions on the government authority to rummage around through the personal records and communication systems for the aim of collecting intelligence. Those Americans who supported the Act maintained that the PATRIOT Act was imperative in providing the law enforcement officials with the necessary information which will help them in their efforts of protecting Americans from further terrorist attack (Ely, Craig, 16).

The most important concept is to understand what the U.S constitution holds in relation to the protection of personal privacy. Although the U.S constitution does not directly state the privacy rights of an individual, the decisions of the Supreme Court have conclude that it is a fundamental human right to keep the personal privacy of an individual with ultimate commitment. An example of the Supreme Court decisions concerning the protection of the personal privacy is the case of Roe v. Wade in 1972 (Ashbrook, 545). In the case, it was concluded that the government would not prohibit abortion because doing so would have violated the bodily privacy or the rights to personal privacy of women. The case Roe v. Wade was decided on the 9th Amendment which provides that even though the constitution provides specific rights like religious choice and free speech, the provisions will not be used to disparage or deny other members of the community who are retained by the people.
Several amendments in the U.S Constitution mention in an indirect way concerning the right to privacy. For instance, the 4th Amendment of the U.S Constitution protects the individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures. This similar 4th Amendment provides that all people have the right to be secure in their persons, papers, houses and effects against unscrupulous seizures and searches. The violations of these rights are against the 4th Amendment. The search is only allowed on provision of a support from the affirmation or Oath and especially a clear description of the place to be searched and what to be seized in terms of things or persons (Eaton, 2010). The 4th amendment therefore protects that the individuals privacy and that the searching of every air traveler without a probable cause is ultimately unconstitutional. The strip-search method the way it is commonly referred to is very unreasonable and should be stopped immediately.

The ensuring of security among all Americans also extends to their health safety concern. The exposure of radiations to the air travelers can pose a danger in the ionizing radiations which can cause mistakes in the DNA of individual. This aspect crosses from being a legal issue to that of an ethical aspect. The government cannot knowingly commit every individual in taking the test whereas knowing very well the risks of radiation exposure. Where have the medical oncologists gone in the policy making process. It requires an expert review of any procedure meant to screen a mass number of individuals. The US FDA should direct all the procedures in the port and carry out tests and confirming to the public, without bias, that the procedure is safe to human health.

Among other ethical issues are the issues emanating from the application of the scanners to screen the children under the age of 18. This procedure violates the laws protecting the rights of the children. There is a legislation which forbids the creation of indecent pictures of children and the civil liberties and privacy campaigners argue that the pictures obtained from the scanners are very graphic (Gentile, 2010). The scanners are used for virtual searching which can obtain the clear images of the air drivellers private parts including the breast and the genitals.

The whole issue which remains hidden is the business side of the producing company. It is therefore very hard to stop this kind of screening because of the huge profits they make from the sales. The tenders given to governments and to individual people are much and the policy makers find it hard to talk facts since they are suppressed in the process of making decisions. Bias has killed the politics of many great nations and money and greed is taking rule. The issue of exposing the nudity of people is straight forward unconstitutional and nothing should be debated about its legal nature. It is unconstitutional.

0 comments:

Post a Comment