The Muslim News - Body scanners violation of privacy

Issue 254, Friday 25 June 2010 - 12 Rajab 1431

Body scanners violation of privacy

By Elham Asaad Buaras

Images captured by full body scanners operating in Heathrow and Manchester airport

British Civil right groups and Muslim leaders have deemed the newly introduced full body scanners a violation of privacy. During the consultation period (ending late June) privacy campaigners have offered ethical and technical opposition to the scanners to the Government.

Advanced Imaging Technology introduced in response to the attempt to blow up an American plane on December, 2009, produce a virtual 3D naked images, images which privacy campaigners say are tantamount to a strip search.

BAA, Britain’s largest airport operator, predicts that “body-scanning and other technology will play an important role in enhancing the security process.”

The Ł80,000 machines are currently being trialed at Manchester airport following tests at Heathrow airport from 2004 to 2008.

The trials only went ahead after under 18’s were exempted. The decision came after Terri Dowty of Action for Rights of Children, gave warning that the scanners could breach the Protection of Children Act 1978, under which it is illegal to create an indecent image or a “pseudo-image” of a child.

The scanners were also being rolled out across the US, with 40 machines used at 19 airports. The Fiqh Council of North America (FCNA), a body of Islamic scholars, issued a fatwa last year ruling going through the scanners would violate Islamic rules on modesty.

“Islam highly emphasizes haya (modesty) and considers it part of faith. The Qur’an has commanded the believers, both men and women, to cover their private parts,” reads the fatwa issued.

FCNA recommends that instead of producing and displaying a picture of the body, software should be designed to produce only the picture of questionable materials on an outline of the body. Further, other technologies could be used that detect the presence of explosives without infringing on modesty as some European leaders have pointed out. FCNA appreciates the alternate provision of pat-down search.

However, unlike its US counterparts, UK airports do not give passengers the option of undergoing a body pat-down search.

Dr Majid Katme, of UK’s Islamic Medical Association said “alternatives are needed in order to cater to our human rights and privacies. Women officials at the airports can search Muslim women, but without filming and storage of any photo to make sure no man is looking at these private naked images of Muslim women.”

“Muslims fully support any measure to be taken by any Government, which can detect any threat from any passenger before they board a flight. However, these measures are unethical and immoral as they show our naked bodies and the outlines of the breasts of women, the genitals of both men and women and the outline of the whole body,” said Katme.

The Interim Code of Practice, introduced by the Dept of Transport, prohibits the profile based scanning i.e. on a basis that may constitute discrimination. However the ‘selection’ process is left for the judgment of the security personnel.

In a legal briefing titled Muslim Passenger Profiling Solicitor Nasir Hafezi writes: “The selection criteria is not clear nor open to public scrutiny and therefore there are concerns Muslims of particular religious dress, destination to Muslim countries, nationality and national origin will be targeted. There is no proper monitoring of the use of full body scanners.”

The body scanners, which were introduced at Manchester airport’s terminal 2 as a trial in October 2009, have already caused controversy.

Two women were stopped from boarding a plane after refusing to undergo a full body scan. The passengers were due to fly to Islamabad on February 19 when they were selected to go through the scanners.

One, who is believed to be a Muslim, refused on religious reasons and the other cited health grounds. They are thought to be the first people to refuse to use the scanners since they became compulsory in February.

“With the use of other security checks already being used in a disproportionate and discriminatory manner against Muslim passengers, I can not but suspect that the use of full body scanners will also eventually be used in a discriminatory and disproportionate manner against Muslims, and would in any event be ineffective to counter or disrupt terrorism with the current security measures in place,” said Hafezi.

Experts have questioned the scanners’ effectiveness at detecting the type of bomb allegedly used on Christmas Day in an attempted plane attack over Detroit, USA.
On January 5, the then Home Secretary, Alan Johnson, admitted to the House of Commons there is only “a 50% to 60% chance that a full-body scanner would have detected the explosives.”

The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) said the devices risked breaching an individual’s right to privacy under the Human Rights Act.

In its letter, the EHRC called on the Government to set out in detail the justification for bringing in body scanners, and clarify what safeguards will be put in place.

The watchdog has said the proposals are likely to have a negative impact on privacy, especially in relation to certain groups such as disabled people, the elderly, children and the transgendered community.

It also wants to see the evidence for the profiling of air passengers.

EHRC, Legal Director, John Wadham said, “The Government needs to ensure that measures to protect this right also take into account the need to be proportionate in its counter-terrorism proposals and ensure that they are justified by evidence and effectiveness.”

Privacy campaigners echoed EHRC’s concerns.

Big Brother Watch Director, Dylan Sharpe, said the previous Government had not considered privacy in its “desperation to be seen to be doing something”.

“They are another intrusion into our privacy in the name of protection, yet we know that they are not fail-safe and could see airport authorities becoming reliant on a deeply flawed method of detection,” he added.