RSS FeedCriteria for Body Scan Screenings
We seem to be getting mixed messages today about the use of body scanners in Canada.
The Privacy Commissioner of Canada conducted two Privacy Impact Assessments (PIAs) for the Canadian Air Transport Security Association (CATSA) to assess the impact of whole body scanners.
Assistant Privacy Commission Chantal Bernier said in a speech in Ottawa on October 30, 2009,
…we consider this technology to be inherently sensitive as it reveals an outline of the traveller’s body. Many people may perceive it as privacy invasive.
Pulat Yunusov has noted earlier that the personal privacy issues may not necessarily be as significant, given the low resolution and identity controls around the imaging.
Of greater concern is which individuals are selected for body scans. Bernier allayed these concerns as well in the same speech,
…the technology will be used only for secondary purposes, after an individual has already passed through the metal detector. What’s more, the scans will be voluntary, with passengers given the option of going through them, or having a physical pat-down.
Bernier repeated these criteria today in comments to the press, stating that it is only for those who have failed the metal detector test.
However, Rob Merrifield, Junior Transport Minister, stated in a joint conference with John Baird,
Travelers who are selected for secondary screening will be asked to walk through the wave scanner…
[emphasis added]
Although Merrifield did mention the alternative physical search, the metal detector is conspicuously absent – at least in media reports of the conference.
Removing the metal detector component of secondary screening makes the scans no longer voluntary. It also introduces a significant amount of arbitrariness and discretion into their use, making them subject to abuse.
Anyone compelled to go through a body scan without failing a metal detector test, or not informed of the alternative physical search if they do, should issue a complain while citing the PIA guidelines. At the very least, the Ministers should clarify what the criteria are for using the body scanners to avoid confusion among the public and by security officials.
Ministers of the opposition parties have noted that typically an issue like this would go before a Parliamentary committee, where such clarification would likely be sought.
But that’s right, we can’t do that because with have a Prime Minister that would prorogue politics over our safety.
Prorogue a ‘Very Dangerous’ Precedent
Prof. Errol Mendes of UofO has stated that PM Harper’s recent decision to prorogue government is not just a bad idea, but “very dangerous.”
Any time that the prime minister wants to evade the confidence of the House now he can use this precedent to do so…
This is certainly an unprecedented situation that we saw unfold. I hope that we won’t come to the brink of this type of effort to unseat a sitting government going against the democratic wishes of the people of Canada.
Mendes is the same person who contemplated seeking an injunction when the election was called early.
He suggests that parliament could pass legislation to prevent prorogue abuse in the future, which may just happen when the House resumes in January. All three parties have indicated they intend to continue their efforts despite attempts at appeasement.
In the meantime I’m thinking that if the PM can prorogue over lack of confidence, why can’t all of us follow the same precedent?
I’m thinking of proroguing my exams this week. Friends have indicated an interest in proroguing mortgage payments, or maternity leave until their kids hit 21.
One of my colleagues in law school posed a philosophical question as to whether death could be prorogued. My response was if an elected government doesn’t do the job we elect them (or not) to do, can we regard it as a breach of social contract and prorogue our taxes?
Probably not, but just like death and taxes, the recent move by the PM likely just delays the inevitable.
Cross-posted from Slaw.
