By Michael Weber
If you are currently planning a vacation to Europe, I advise you to make a few more sweaty trips to your nearest gym or take out that dusty ab-trainer you bought a few summers ago. Otherwise, you might become the center of an unpleasant trans-Atlantic striptease.
The European Commission has been trying to introduce body scanners that can be used in alternative to body searches at airports across the EU by 2010. Body scanners are machines that use radio waves to produce nude-like images of individuals. In a proposal last month, the Commission added scanning to a list of civil aviation security measures. The machines already have been introduced on a trial basis in ten of the busiest airports in the U.S., where there has been little or no public debate on the issue.
EU institutions and nations have been split over the topic. Supporters believe in the need for strong security policies to fight the war against terrorism; opponents argue that it is a clear violation of individual rights.
The European Parliament decided last week that the scanners amount to "a virtual strip search" and asked the Commission to assess fundamental rights issues and health impacts of the radiation technologies. Europe's interior ministers discussed the plans during a meeting in Luxembourg. While France's Alliot-Marie stressed the need to use "advanced technologies to fight terrorists and major criminals," her German counterpart Wolfgang Schäuble opposed the proposal. Schäuble, usually known for prioritizing security-focused policies, argued that he does not "want the police to run the risk of being accused of voyeurism."
As Deutsche Welle reports, German Social Democrat Wolfgang Kreissl-Doerfler argued during the debate that "these devices allow one to see genitals, if a woman has big or small breasts". Looking at the pictures by Spiegel Online depicted below, the objections voiced by Kreissl-Doerfler and the entire political spectrum in Germany seems understandable. Nude bathing and naturism might be a culture alongside Eastern Germany's Baltic coast but an airport location simply does not seem suitable for such practices.
Supporters of the scanners, however, have a valuable point to make. Body searches may occasionally be extremely invasive and humiliating, too. Who doesn't feel uncomfortable the moment they walk through a metal detector?
According to the European Journal, Transport Commissioner Antonio Tajani has already assured the European Parliament that body scanners are only regarded as an "additional option for the screening of passengers, not as an obligation." Passengers will supposedly be offered a choice which security measure they want to undergo. The Commission has also stressed that scanners are believed to facilitate security checks and reduce lines at airports.
Whatever the final decision on the scanners will be, what is most important is the fact that this debate is actually taking place. Discussions and negotiations within the Council and the European Parliament as well as with the Commission are signs of a healthy democracy and a signal that individual freedom is still somewhat respected.
Michael Weber is a visiting scholar at the Center for Transatlantic Relations.
Email the Author | Email This Post | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook
The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Johns Hopkins University.
Comments (1)
It's a bit unnerving and also very shocking to me that these body scanners have been installed in US airports (one of which I frequently fly in & out of) and yet, not only have I failed to see these machines in the airport myself, but there seems to have been little to no coverage or opposition to these measures in the US media. I thought vehement opposition to new, potential violations to our civil liberties is what our country was known for?
Regarding the point at issue, though, I think faced with the choice between these body scanners and metal detectors, I would be inclined to choose the former. First, there's the issue of time. The amount of time it takes to go through security checkpoint has definitely doubled since 9/11, to the point where it is not unusual for people to miss their flights because they were waiting for people to remove their coats, jackets, and shoes for over half an hour.
Then, there's that more controversial issue of rights violations. It seems that in recent years, the combination of heightened airport security measures and the inadequacies of metal detectors have led to huge invasions of privacy. You're right, everyone's wary of walking through that detector because if you set that thing off, you'll immediately be pulled aside to be personally searched by a TSA official. And think of the women who get pulled aside because the under wire in their bra sets the detector off. They're then subject to uncomfortable pat downs and probes in public. This situation is hardly hypothetical. Similar situations seem to have been an issue in recent years and often not limited to women. Perhaps you could argue that these measures, although inconvenient, are necessary in the interest of national security. But really, what sense of security is strengthened or gained if I can't feel comfortable every time I want to board a plane? I am not refuting the importance of a high level of airport security, but I think many would rather go through a device that "reveals they have small breasts" over being physically felt up for these purposes.
I guess to be fully decided on one side of the debate, I would have to see the images that these devices produce for myself. And I suppose it would be good to know how much radiation you would be exposed to. I could imagine how for individuals who are flying in and out of airports on a day-to-day basis, constant radiation exposure might not be that healthy.
November 6, 2008 1:51 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Posted on November 6, 2008 13:51