Travel Reference
In-Depth Information
frontiers infringes upon Article 13 of the UNUDHR (1948) and Article 12 of
the ICCPR (1966) which give every person in the world the freedom to travel
within and across national frontiers and to settle in any place. Nevertheless,
government officials justify their actions under the name of security.
Countries allow security screening officials to exercise powers over travellers
including confiscating personal laptop computers and other electronic
devices; detaining travellers of certain ethnicity (regardless of their nationali-
ties) or people whose names happen to be similar to those on the 'wanted'
list for many hours for 'interviews'; and strip searching travellers for hidden
items in body cavities, etc. Of course, states cannot allow the wholesale
entry of persons into their territories because of security risks. However,
state officials should always endeavour not to deny people the right to move-
ment, especially when there is no evidence of risk. A balance needs to be
struck between security and the freedom of travel.
In recent times, some human rights concerns have been raised about
some of the devices used for conducting security checks at airports. One such
concern pertains to the use of body scanners at airports. Travellers who are
uncomfortable with a body scan or the alternative 'pat down' often raise
privacy issues as they believe these techniques amount to intrusive personal
searches. Others cite health risks of exposure to radiation although the claim
of radiation exposure from the scans has not been entirely denied. Smith-
Bindman and Mehta (2011) focused on airport body scanners, radiation
exposure and cancer risks and found radiation exposure from airport body
scanners has very little chance of increasing cancer risks. Because of the long-
term concerns for cancer risk of screening officials, as well as of travellers
(Rabin, 2012), and concerns for privacy (Brown & Narain, 2012) the widely
used full-body X-ray scanners will eventually be replaced. The use of biomet-
ric measures (i.e. face, fingerprints, hand geometry, handwriting, iris of the
eye, retinal veins in the eye and voice) has become commonplace in techno-
logically developed nations in the early 2000s. The technology has advanced
to the point of new systems such as the Human Recognition System at
Gatwick Airport, UK (Krowneva, 2013) or the 'Non-stop' Biometric Gate at
Narita Airport, Japan (Future Travel Experience, 2013) becoming a reality.
The instant recognition of the travellers by biometric information without
being stopped gives the travellers the sense of non-invasive screening; how-
ever, the issue of privacy is far from resolved.
The high rate of installation of scan technology at various entry and
departure points across the globe and their mandatory use in many airports
and seaports for travellers before entry and exit demonstrates the need to
re-examine the human rights concerns raised by these devices. Article 12 of
the UNUDHR (1948), and Article 17 of the ICCPR (1966) provide for non-
interference of individual and group privacy which include the freedom from
arbitrary checks. Hence, security checks that violate personal privacy should
be re-examined. Since travelling within and across borders is constantly
Search WWH ::
Custom Search