The Dutch press has been quite busy with reports and opinions on the failed attack on Northwest flight 253. Some have been published or commented on here. This was to be expected as the flight originated in the Netherlands; Schiphol airport’s security—or lack of it—played a key role; and “the hero of flight 253” was Dutch.
A lot of the discussion on, and even justification for, the failure in security has centered on privacy rights.
In an Editorial today in the Dutch NRC Handelsblad, we read the following:
In the heat of such a discussion, it is always good to remember the fundamental rights citizens have. Under the Dutch constitution for example, all people have a right to privacy (article 10) and the integrity of the human body (article 11). But in both articles the constitution says the right can be limited by formal law. In other words: these constitutional rights are not sacrosanct. Still, because of the current state of affairs, they may be casually pushed aside under the guise of increased security.
The European Commission was an early adopter of the idea of using full body scans at European airports. But the initial release date planned for next year was pushed back by European parliament. British conservative Philip Bradbourn in a debate last year pointed out the “technology has the potential to turn a legitimate security concern into an unacceptable peepshow for security industries.” He felt the dignity of innocent travelers was at stake.
Italian communist Giusto Catania said: “The mania for extracting ever more information that could be useful in the fight against terrorism is fostering an authoritarian interpretation of the rule of law.” Others raised questions about possible health risks of the radiation wave technology.
While the Editorial admits that “In all likelihood, most passengers would opt for a sense of safety over their privacy and fear of a Big Brother-like government,” it concludes with the following caveat:
But that is no reason to take the implementation of the body scans lightly. The arguments brought to the table by MEPs last year have not suddenly lost all merit. And what will be considered safe travel if tomorrow’s terrorist doesn’t take a plane, but boards the high speed train from Amsterdam to Paris wearing a bomb belt, remains an open question.
Read the complete Editorial here.
The author is a retired U.S. Air Force officer and a writer.