Always question the assertion that your privacy is protected

Last week my CBC radio column covered the recent introduction of a 3D imaging surveillance system used at the Kelowna BC airport to screen passengers. Using millimetre waves the system is able to penetrate clothing and create a vivid 3D model of the passenger without clothes on. Thus it is a far more thorough system then the existing setup which only scans for metal.

Part of the focus of the column was on the privacy implications of such a system, and at the time CATSA (the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority) was claiming it had the support of the federal privacy commissioner. I mentioned this in my column, but also expressed skepticism that the current steps being taken to protect passenger's privacy was not enough.

Turns out, the privacy commissioner does not support the pilot project, and does indeed have concerns with how passengers privacy might be violated. Here's a quote from the Globe and Mail:

"However, the privacy commissioner's office said yesterday it is concerned about the implications of the new system and it never told CATSA officials that the body-scanning technology meets Canadian privacy standards.

"At this very early stage we certainly don't know enough to endorse the project, so the suggestion that we endorsed it is perhaps a bit off," commission spokeswoman Anne-Marie Hayden said. "I think we're going to have to watch it closely and we're going to want to ensure that individuals' privacy rights are protected."

Thanks to Blair Campbell for alerting me to this. Goes to show that even when an organization says it is protecting your privacy you should still question that assertion, and try and think of unforeseen ways in your rights my be violated.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

ACK!

That machine sounds like most women's worst nightmare!

LaoTzuWuWeiTaoEmily