Body scanners and human rights
FOLLOWING THE ATTEMPTED TERRORIST ATTACK on a Northwest Airlines flight between Amsterdam and Detroit on Christmas Day 2009, it was inevitable that airport security would be tightened up. The 'underpants bomb' worn by Umar Abdulmutallab had passed through security, and this accelerated consideration for the use of airport body scanners.
Understandably, the use of body scanners has been brought in extremely quickly to meet possible terrorist threats. Gordon Brown quickly announced scanner trials, starting at Heathrow Airport in each of the five terminals. One machine was already on trial at Manchester, with proposals to introduce machines at Birmingham and elsewhere. In the United States, the Department of Homeland Security installed three x-ray scanning machines at Boston's Logan Airport in March 2010, and proposes to put in place 450 in various US airports by the end of 2010. Other countries around the world are monitoring the position, particularly as the equipment available from a number of suppliers costs in the region of £100,000 per machine.
There has been some concern relating to the invasion of privacy for passengers, given the extremely revealing view of the body given by these machines. There has also been concern about data protection and the potential targeting of particular ethnic groups. For these reasons, at the end of January 2010 the Department for Transport (DFT) produced an interim code of practice relating to the use of advanced imaging technology at airports. The code of practice will be reviewed by the DFT as the body scanners are introduced and ensures that the airport operator must operate an effective privacy policy, including a requirement that the security officer viewing the image must not be able to see the person whose image they are viewing. The person selected for scanning can request that the screen reader is of the same sex as the passenger concerned, and the image that the machine captures must be destroyed and irretrievable once the screening has taken place. Only where the image appears to show something unusual can the security officer ask a colleague to review the image. There can be no method of copying or transferring images. Security officers must be fully trained and an effective communication strategy must be deployed to inform people of why they might be selected for screening. Passengers who are selected must not be chosen on the basis of gender, age, race or ethnic origin.
There has been considerable reaction to the introduction of body scanners, particularly in view of the nature of the image which is viewed. The Equality and Human Rights Commission has written to Secretary of State for Transport Lord Adonis advising that the scanners might break discrimination law as well as passengers' privacy, pointing out that without proper care, there could be discrimination against vulnerable groups such as the elderly, the disabled and children.
Islamic scholars have forbidden Muslim travellers from passing through full body scans at airports because they violate Islamic teachings that men or women should not be seen naked by other men and women. In the US, the Transportation Security Administration has advised that Muslims will have an option of a pat down search, but this does not apply in the UK where travellers who refuse to pass through scanners could be denied boarding. In early March 2010, a Muslim woman and her female companion were banned from boarding a flight at Manchester Airport after being selected at random. BAA has disputed claims by Bollywood star Shahrukh Khan, made on Friday Night with Jonathan Ross, that following being screened, there were women who appeared to have print-outs of his image. BAA stated this was an impossibility for the equipment being used.
Governments have to make difficult security decisions that may compromise absolute human rights if they are to be effective in the prevention of international terrorism. It is only by having an almost nude image of a passenger that possible explosive devices like the 'underpants bomb' can be spotted.
ATOL AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
The Air Travel Organisers' Licensing (ATOL) system is in disarray, following the Court of Appeal decision in ABTA v the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), which seemed to suggest separate travel components could be sold at the same time yet not comprise a 'package'. Following this, the CAA prosecuted Travel Republic in connection with sales of travel components combined by the customer on its dynamic packaging website where Travel Republic stated that it was only an agent for the supplier concerned. The CAA maintains that an ATOL is required as the sales were 'packages'. Both Travel Republic and its director were acquitted by the Magistrates Court, and this is now the subject of an appeal to the divisional court of the High Court, which will be heard in May 2010. This considerable uncertainty has led for much lobbying with a view to revise the European Package Travel Directive.
One particular area of concern to the business travel community is the stance of the leisure sector, who have lobbied hard for some years to require airline insolvency to be covered by European law. The leisure sector sees an unlevel playing field where travel organisers are required to provide bonds and financial protection or to secure payment of the ATOL Protection Contribution (APC) on each booking, while airlines can trade without protecting monies paid over for tickets. Understandably, the scheduled airline sector is against any form of consumer protection which would have the effect of imposing a further layer of cost. The European Air Passengers Rights consultation has allowed ABTA to press the case for change to include airlines in a financial protection scheme. Understandably, with the International Air Transport Association (IATA) expecting the world's airlines to make a combined loss of $2.8 billion in 2010, airlines do not wish to add further costs to their operations.