Paying the price for a secure flight

Two MEPs discuss security issues

Sophie in ’t Veld

Recently a major international news network committed a gaffe by misspelling the name of the prominent Democrat Senator Barack Obama as ‘Osama’. A very embarrassing mistake by the network, sure, but most of all a disturbing example of how easily mistakes can be made and of the importance of names. If the same mistake had been made by Obama’s internet provider or his travel agent or the employee at his bank, he might have ended up on a watch list.

Surveillance of citizens has taken on Orwellian proportions. Literally every single move can be followed, nothing remains hidden.

Air travel has the particular attention of security services. Passengers are subject to ever more security checks, which are time-consuming and invasive. Old-fashioned X-ray screening is replaced by body scans that peer through clothes or detect chemicals or radiation. Cameras in the airport and radio frequency identity (RFID) tags on boarding passes allow for tracking every move of passengers in the airport. Some airlines have already installed cameras and microphones on board aircraft and intelligent cameras and microphones are being developed that analyse facial expressions and conversations of passengers and alert the crew to ‘suspicious behaviour’. Luggage is checked extensively and the contents of hand luggage are severely restricted. Long check-in times, lost luggage and delayed flights are the result. Some passengers are unlucky. They turn out to be on a ‘no-fly list’ and are not allowed to board, or they even end up being arrested.

Data of various kinds are travelling all over the world at the speed of light, mainly for commercial purposes. We all agree that such data can make our lives easier. But they may be of great use in the fight against terrorism and crime. Many people readily give up their privacy and freedom for greater security, feeling they "have nothing to hide" anyway.

Sharing of data and information is good, but not without strict rules concerning, for example, purpose limitation, access to data, storage periods, data protection and means of redress for individual citizens. The transfer of data must be proportionate (ie, not more than needed to achieve the purpose) and effective (ie, actually contribute to greater security). Finally such programmes must be subject to democratic control and judicial review. Neither the current agreement on the transfer of passenger name record (PNR) data nor the transfer of data by the SWIFT banking system fully meets these criteria. The US database ATS (Automated Targeting System) raises grave concerns as well.

The data are being used for a wide range of purposes, such as combating bird flu, screening job applicants or fighting fraud. Instead of searching for data on the basis of a concrete suspicion, entire databases are being used for data-mining and profiling operations. Data are being made available to the authorities on a massive scale, but the exchange of data between services and countries leaves much to be desired, so that the effectiveness is doubtful. Citizens get little or no information on these programmes and in case of mistakes, leaking, or abuse of their data by the authorities they have hardly any means of redress. Parliamentary oversight is almost completely lacking.

Privacy is not a fancy toy of civil liberties activists, but a vital element of a free and democratic society. The right to anonymity is key to the freedom of speech. Many Europeans still have a living memory of murderous totalitarian regimes in the 20th century that used records of personal data and monitoring mechanisms to oppress, persecute and murder their citizens. European integration was the answer to this: Europe is about democracy, freedom, equality and civil rights. Europe and its allies must therefore not only protect these values against those who seek to destroy them with violence, but also against erosion from within.

• Dutch Liberal (ALDE) MEP Sophia in ’t Veld is a substitute member of the Parliament’s committee on civil liberties, justice and home affairs and prepared a report on the EU’s negotiations with the US on passenger name records.

Paolo Costa

Modern-day transport security measures are an answer both to a private (passenger) fear and to a public concern. It becomes virtually impossible to face challenges in transport security without involving and at least in some degree burdening the passenger. But at the same time it would be unfair to discharge governments from all financial responsibility in the matter.

The challenge which faces governments and the aviation industry really has to do with minimising the burden and sharing responsibilities and co-ordinating actions to achieve that objective.

A first and obvious consideration is information to the traveller. The average passenger’s propensity to tolerate inconvenience is directly correlated to the amount of information he or she is given. For example, if people know why they cannot take certain liquids on board aircraft, if the rules are clearly explained to them and if practice is uniform, then the sense of inconvenience is reduced if not eliminated. Perhaps in the immediate aftermath of the terrorist alert in London in August 2006 governments and the industry did not always ensure that passengers were fully aware of what was allowed, what was not and why not. Even now members of the public are buying products in third country airports which are confiscated on their arrival in the EU as transit passengers.

Secondly some thought has to be given to infrastructure and how to use or improve it. Tighter security controls mean longer waits and queues. Aviation is a growth industry and in virtually every member state plans exist to increase airport capacity. Every chance should be taken, in planning and providing new infrastructure, or updating existing facilities to minimise and rationalise queuing and provide at least some basic comforts in that process.

Thirdly and crucially, there is the question of costs and how these should be apportioned. To begin with the passenger and taxpayer need transparency. Whoever pays for security costs should know what they are paying for and how. Security costs need to be distinct and hypothecated, not hidden in some general charge for airport services. Ultimately, of course, the costs will fall on the taxpayer, the passenger or both. There could be instances of unfair burdens on passengers and member states and the aviation industry should act to prevent that. Two examples come to mind. Why should a passenger flying from Buenos Aires to Moscow via London pay for security costs in London on his or her ticket? If he or she does, what longer-term consequences could that have for EU airports as major international hubs? Again, specific security emergencies call forth from member states particularly draconian and unilateral measures, as we have seen. These emergencies might result as a direct consequence of foreign and defence policy choices of the state. The terrorists’ target is not so much aviation but civil society as a whole. Aviation is merely a means to that broader reprehensible end. Why in these cases should airline passengers alone meet the cost of defending civil society?

Finally can it be right that, in what is in effect a single integrated European market, different funding regimes for aviation security operate, depending on the member state?

The costs of security to passengers cannot be eliminated and this burden, unfortunately, cannot be waved away with a magic wand. But it can be reduced by better information flow, by better use, where possible, of existing infrastructure and planning of new provision; and by member states in the Council of Ministers engaging with the European Parliament constructively on the question of costs to the passenger. The opportunity is there as we work together on the regulation on common rules for civil aviation security, a dossier for which I am rapporteur. If we can, as the Parliament in its first reading sought, obtain transparency and cost-sharing then we will have lessened the passengers’ burden while putting in place a security regime that helps protect us from the terrorist threat.

• Italian Liberal MEP Paolo Costa is chairman of the Parliament’s committee on transport and tourism.

Two MEPs discuss security issues

• Primary Source