New body scanners are a step too far for airport security

I cannot help but see a comical element in the newest frenzy for security created by the ‘Osama to Obama’ message, in which a voice presumed to be that of Al Qaeda mastermind Osama Bin Laden claims responsibility for the Christmas day almost-suicide bombing aboard a Detroit-bound plane from Amsterdam.

As if the botched attempt itself had not been enough to send US and EU security officials into overdrive, the taped message, broadcast by Al Jazeera news channel, put the magic words back on everyone’s lips. Bin Laden, 9/11, Al Qaeda, and an America-bound airplane: spin doctors on either side of the Atlantic could hardly have asked for better material to work with in order to introduce the latest additions to airport security procedures. News of the tape gave a certain pertinence, authority even, to the discussions being held at the Justice-Interior Affairs summit in Toledo, Spain, a few days earlier.

As European representatives agreed to wait for the European Commission’s report on the health risks and privacy issues related to the introduction of full-body scanners in airports, US official Janet Napolitano tried to convey a sense of urgency. Reminding her counterparts that Al Qaeda puts its very best minds to the task of circumventing airport security, Ms Napolitano stressed that “we” need to measure up.

First of all, greatest minds? If young Umar smuggling explosives in powder/liquid form onto an aeroplane in his underpants is the most ingenious plan Al Qaeda can come up with, then there is reason to be optimistic about ongoing Western efforts to weaken the terrorist group.

You have to admit, the December incident begs the question: why aeroplanes? When procedures are so strict that the steward at the check-in desk advises you to allow 40 minutes to get your hand luggage through security. When getting through security means handing over make-up bags, laptops, and shoes as prime suspects. And when Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab confectioned twenty pounds of homemade dynamite (I hear one can purchase all the ingredients at Walmart) when he could have just waited to arrive in Detroit, and blow himself into martyrdom on the 710 nine mile crosstown bus during rush hour. But leaving such considerations for other budding terrorists to ponder, our most pressing concern is ‘measuring up’. Except that here too, I am sadly amused by the implications of the ongoing discourse. There was a flaw in the chain of information leading to Abdulmutallab? Here comes the Passenger Name Record, which will electronically record passengers’ personal data from the moment that a plane ticket is purchased, ranging from their credit card number to their home address. Explosives made it onto a plane in somebody’s underwear? Let’s introduce full-body scanners that essentially show passengers naked.

The Guardian reports that last August a young man blew himself up in a Saudi security official’s home, with the help of a bomb “hidden in his rectum”. Does this mean we should subject people to rectal examinations before they enter government buildings?

It is difficult to convincingly contest data collection, now that the Facebook age has seen everyone and anyone publishing the most intimate details of their lives on networks that give new meaning to the word ‘public’. Privacy rights should certainly not be forgotten, and the argument has been put forward that this is also one of the contentious issues with full-body scanners. The existing equipment faces charges based on its capacity to stock information and even transfer it towards external databases, and this is indeed a grave concern.

However, before we even let the problem of how to handle data become a reality, is nobody going to pause and challenge the fact that such data should even be created? More than privacy, it is human dignity that becomes the potential trade-off for a week on the beaches in Miami.

Now this is nothing to take to the streets for. Most people will tell you that being seen naked for a split second by a stranger they are unlikely to ever see again does not make it on to the top ten list of grievances. But if anyone does see a problem with the procedure, if anyone does oppose the idea of governments claiming free access to their body, they had better retain the right not to be subjected to such. If for no other reason that this may be the last limit, the last effective control we have over our image.

Happily, it is so far widely acknowledged that full-body scans should only be exercised on a strictly voluntary basis, and all data relating to them should be destroyed immediately. Of course, this means the next Abdulmutallab with a bomb in his underwear will be able to say ‘no, you may not see me naked’. But at least so will I.