Biomedical Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
identifies those faces on file, many people were upset about having their picture taken. We Americans
are just not used to having people or machines knowing where we are and what we do and we resent
such an intrusion on our privacy. We believe, and rightly so, that equipment and procedures such as face
identification have the potential for abuse and loss of our liberty. This conflict between security and
liberty is an example of competing values in ethics. For example, security can be seen as a necessary
end, but some of the means to achieve this end will detract from liberty. This points to one of the
problems with utilitarian ethics. Likewise, the United States was founded on principles espoused by
rights ethicists like John Locke (1632-1704). In fact, three of these rights, life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness, are foundations to the US Constitution. Recently, however, the words of Benjamin Franklin
have taken on added currency:
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
20
Thus, engineers may see the balance between security and liberty as an “optimization problem” between
the two variables. Even Franklin qualified liberty to that which is “essential” and safety to that which is
“temporary.”
The effect of security at airports and public places has been traumatic and costly, as well as bother-
some. However, most people recognize that some security, even loss of certain previously held privacy,
is part of the post-9/11 world. The threshold of where security has eroded liberty is ill defined. A per-
sonal, recent example points to this uncertainty. In 2006, because of a specific threat, U.S. airports
instituted rigorous controls on the amount of fluids allowed to be carried onto aircrafts. However, by
early 2007, the rules were relaxed to allow most small containers of fluids on board if they were placed
in a plastic, sealed bag (i.e., a “baggie”). The cynic might ask: Has one “thin blue line” been drawn at
the baggie?
Second, a malicious person with money and knowledge can get around any technology we implement.
Witness the scourge of viruses in our computers. As soon as the antivirus programs are modified to
take care of the latest virus, unknown persons with devious minds and malicious intent can develop new
viruses that get around the defenses. So it will be with antiterrorist technology.
Third, terrorists can use our own technology to create havoc in our country, the prime example being
the use of fully loaded airplanes on 11 September. The terrorist organizations have used Internet banking
to move money around, defense communication networks to keep in touch, and sophisticated explosives
to kill innocent people - technologies we have developed as part of our national defense. The more
technology we produce, the more it has the potential to harm us.
Fourth, the problem with the development of antiterrorist technology is that it is emergent and it is
not something for which most engineers have yet to develop an aptitude. As evidence, few resources
that would protect us from low technology assault have been developed to date. Traditionally, our
research funds have been spent either to enhance our own health or to develop sophisticated weapons
for countering threats from similarly technically sophisticated enemies. For example, the use-inspired
and applied research budgets of the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Defense greatly
surpass the budgets for basic science research efforts of the National Science Foundation. We have done
very little research on how to protect the safety of the public from terrorist threats. But then even if we
had, the terrorists would simply use that technology for their own purpose, thus negating its original
intent.
