Aviation security, privacy, data protection and other human rights technologies and legal principles

Law, Governance and Technology Series
Sub-series: Issues in Privacy and Data Protection 37

Olga Mironenko Enerstvedt

Aviation Security,
Privacy, Data Protection
and Other Human
Rights: Technologies
and Legal Principles

www.ebook3000.com


Law, Governance and Technology Series
Issues in Privacy and Data Protection
Volume 37

Series editors
Pompeu Casanovas, Barcelona, Spain
Giovanni Sartor, Florence, Italy
Serge Gutwirth, Brussels, Belgium


Issues in Privacy and Data Protection aims at publishing peer reviewed scientific
manuscripts that focus upon issues that engage into an analysis or reflexion related
to the consequences of scientific and technological developments upon the private
sphere, the personal autonomy and the self-construction of humans with data protection and privacy as anchor points. The objective is to publish both disciplinary,
multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary works on questions that relate to experiences
and phenomena that can or could be covered by legal concepts stemming from the
law regarding the protection of privacy and/or the processing of personal data. Since

both the development of science and technology, and in particular information technology (ambient intelligence, robotics, artificial intelligence, knowledge discovery,
data mining, surveillance, etc.), and the law on privacy and data protection are in
constant frenetic mood of change (as is clear from the many legal conflicts and
reforms at hand), we have the ambition to reassemble a series of highly contemporary and forward-looking books, wherein cutting edge issues are analytically, conceptually and prospectively presented
More information about this series at />
www.ebook3000.com


Olga Mironenko Enerstvedt

Aviation Security, Privacy,
Data Protection and Other
Human Rights: Technologies
and Legal Principles


Olga Mironenko Enerstvedt
Aviation and ICT Law Consulting
Langhus, Norway

ISSN 2352-1902        ISSN 2352-1910  (electronic)
Law, Governance and Technology Series
ISSN 2352-1929        ISSN 2352-1937  (electronic)
Issues in Privacy and Data Protection
ISBN 978-3-319-58138-5    ISBN 978-3-319-58139-2 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-58139-2
Library of Congress Control Number: 2017941081
© Springer International Publishing AG 2017
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of
the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,

broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information
storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the
editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors
or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims
in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Printed on acid-free paper
This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature
The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

www.ebook3000.com


Preface

When I was finalizing this work, the worst incident in Russian/Soviet history of
civil aviation occurred. On 31 October 2015, terrorists blew up Airbus A321 during
its flight from Sharm el-Sheikh to St. Petersburg, killing 224 persons on board,
mostly Russians. Tragically, I found I needed to update my research with new sad
facts and figures. When people are killed, it hurts. When fellow citizens are killed,
the pain is doubled.
As a participant of a student exchange programme, I was in the USA at the
moment of the 9/11 attack. I flew from New York to Moscow in October 2001 and
experienced the more stringent security measures. A pair of small scissors was confiscated from my hand baggage. I was living in Moscow when the worst terrorist

events occurred there, such as the Dubrovka Theatre siege in 2002 and bombing of
two flights by suicide terrorists in 2004. On 22 July 2011, I was living in Norway
and personally heard the explosion of bombs in government buildings in Oslo. One
of the guests invited to my wedding party a week later was unable to attend; her
close relative had been killed in the bombings of the government quarter in Oslo.
There have been other terrorist-related events in my life.
Turning from the personal to a more general perspective, I must say that although
not all these catastrophic events were aviation-related, almost all of them had some
influence on security regimes, including aviation. Flying from Oslo to Moscow and
back quite frequently, as well as other routes, I could not help but notice direct or
indirect consequences such as restrictions on liquids, having to remove shoes, metal
detectors at the entrance of the airport or body scanners. As a researcher in the field
of aviation security and data privacy, however, I know that these measures are only
the tip of the iceberg. The emerging mass of security-related data and the corresponding impact on individual privacy are only in the beginning stage of
development.
My interest in aviation grew as a result of my work as a lawyer in a business aviation company, Moscow Sky, operating internationally. I worked there during 2005–
2008. I have fond memories of my colleagues and the time I spent there. When I
then took the LLM degree in ICT law at the University of Oslo, I was very fortunate
v


vi

Preface

to be able to combine aviation and data protection issues in my master’s thesis. The
topic concerned passenger name record agreements between the EU and the
USA.  My master’s thesis was published by the Norwegian Research Center for
Computers and Law (NRCCL). I was privileged to have Professor Jon Bing as my
supervisor. Very sadly, he passed away in 2014.

Inspired by conversations with Jon Bing and the director of NRCCL, Professor
Dag Wiese Schartum, I decided to further develop the topic. The aim was to research
broader issues in civil aviation security versus privacy, data protection and other
human rights and – on a global level – to write a book. I completed the work in
2016.
First of all, I would like to thank Professor Dag Wiese Schartum. He has always
been very supportive, available for help and advice at any time and willing to provide valuable comments and ideas. I am also very thankful to Professor Lee Andrew
Bygrave, for his invaluable advice and comments, in particular on data privacy
issues.
I would like to thank Peter Burgess from PRIO for his encouragement of my
work at the initial stage, inviting me to relevant seminars and sharing contacts in the
civil aviation field. I would like to thank the Norwegian Civil Aviation Authority for
hosting a meeting at which they presented their organization and work. Many thanks
go to the personnel of the Norwegian airport operator Avinor, in particular to senior
security advisor Ole Folkestad, who was especially helpful in providing me with an
of understanding the use of technologies in modern airports. My gratitude also goes
to other relevant entities and persons, in particular from Norway and Russia, who
took the time to answer my questions.
I would also like to thank all colleagues at the NRCCL who have always been
very kind and friendly towards me. Special thanks go to the head of administration
of the Institute of Private Law, Eva Modvar, and then to her successor, Eli Knotten,
for their kindness and help with every practical issue I faced and for always being
available to provide support and advice. I would like to specially thank Tim
Challman for proofreading the final text and for offering valuable comments and
advice regarding the English language.
I am indebted to my family, especially to my mother, my husband Håken and our
children, Maria, Anna and Aleksander. Håken has been very kind and extremely
patient. He has been a willing babysitter and took good care of our small children,
while I was busy with the book and was unable to spend as much time with them as
I wished. This work is dedicated to my family. I love you.

Langhus, Norway

Olga Mironenko Enerstvedt

www.ebook3000.com


Contents

1Introduction................................................................................................1

1.1Background and Subject Matter........................................................1

1.2Aims of the Research........................................................................8

1.3Approach of the Research.................................................................9

1.4Overview of the Structure.................................................................13
Part I  General Part
2Protection of Privacy and Data Protection in Aviation Security...........19

2.1Introduction.......................................................................................19
2.2What Is Privacy and Data Protection................................................22

2.2.1The Concept of Privacy.........................................................22

2.2.2The Concept of Data Protection............................................32

2.2.3Relation Between Privacy and Data Protection....................39
2.3Privacy and Data Protection Regulation...........................................41

2.3.1International..........................................................................41

2.3.2EU.........................................................................................44

2.3.3National.................................................................................51
2.4Concluding Remarks.........................................................................61
3Other Human Rights in Aviation Security..............................................65
3.1Introduction.......................................................................................65
3.2The Concept of Human Rights..........................................................67

3.2.1Protection of Human Rights..................................................67

3.2.2Limitations of Rights............................................................70
3.3Right to Life......................................................................................74
3.4Right to Health..................................................................................78
3.5Right to Freedom of Movement........................................................80
3.6Right to Equal Treatment and Non-discrimination...........................85
3.7Right to Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion..................88
3.8Rights of the Child............................................................................91
3.9Concluding Remarks.........................................................................94
vii


viii

Contents

4Civil Aviation Security...............................................................................97

4.1Introduction.......................................................................................97
4.2Security and Its Relation to Safety....................................................99
4.3Civil Aviation and Civil Aviation Security by Numbers...................101

4.4Snapshots from History.....................................................................108

4.4.1The Earliest Days of Aviation – 1968...................................108

4.4.21968–9/11..............................................................................109

4.4.3Aftermath of 9/11..................................................................111

4.4.4Recent Developments............................................................114
4.5Aviation Security Concept................................................................117

4.5.1Introduction...........................................................................117

4.5.2Risk Assessment....................................................................118

4.5.3Assets....................................................................................121

4.5.4Threats...................................................................................122

4.5.5Benefits..................................................................................131

4.5.6Conclusion............................................................................136
4.6Principles of Aviation Security.........................................................137
4.7Aviation Security Regulation............................................................140

4.7.1International..........................................................................140

4.7.2EU.........................................................................................144

4.7.3National.................................................................................147
4.8Concluding Remarks.........................................................................154
5Legal Principles of Privacy and Data Protection....................................157
5.1Introduction.......................................................................................157
5.2What Are Principles in This Research?.............................................158
5.3General Principles.............................................................................163

5.3.1Legality.................................................................................164

5.3.2Proportionality Principle.......................................................174
5.4Principles of Data Protection............................................................187

5.4.1Purpose Limitation................................................................191

5.4.2Minimality.............................................................................194

5.4.3Non-retention of Data Beyond a Certain Period of Time......195

5.4.4Data Quality..........................................................................196

5.4.5Data Security.........................................................................197

5.4.6Data Subject Influence..........................................................198
5.5Concluding Remarks to Chap. 5 and to General Part.......................201
Part II  Special Part
6Aviation Security Technologies.................................................................205
6.1Introduction.......................................................................................205

6.2Types of Aviation Security Measures................................................206
6.3Body Scanners...................................................................................212

6.3.1Introduction...........................................................................212

6.3.2Millimetre Wave....................................................................215

www.ebook3000.com


Contents

ix

6.3.3Transmission X-Ray..............................................................230
6.3.4Concluding Remarks.............................................................233
6.4Camera Surveillance.........................................................................234
6.4.1Introduction...........................................................................234
6.4.2Camera Surveillance at Airports...........................................238
6.4.3Biometrics, in Particular Facial Recognition........................247
6.4.4Profiling.................................................................................257
6.4.5Behaviour Analysis, in Particular via CCTV........................262
6.4.6In-Flight Camera Surveillance..............................................266
6.4.7Concluding Remarks.............................................................268
6.5Passenger Name Records Systems....................................................269
6.5.1Introduction...........................................................................269
6.5.2Effectiveness.........................................................................273
6.5.3Data Protection and Privacy Issues.......................................276
6.5.4Other Human Rights Issues...................................................281
6.5.5Concluding Remarks.............................................................281
6.6Technology and Freedom of Movement...........................................281
6.7Technology and Discrimination........................................................284
6.8Modern Trends in Aviation Security.................................................291

6.8.1Introduction...........................................................................291
6.8.2Intelligence-Led, Pro-active and Risk-Based Approach.......292
6.8.3Global Information Sharing..................................................296
6.8.4Randomness and Unpredictability........................................297
6.8.5Combination of Security Measures.......................................298
6.8.6Concluding Remarks.............................................................301
6.9Concluding Remarks.........................................................................302

7Analysis of Privacy and Data Protection Principles...............................307
7.1Introduction.......................................................................................307
7.2Legality.............................................................................................308

7.2.1Introduction...........................................................................308

7.2.2Information Openness and Transparency..............................308

7.2.3In Accordance with the Law.................................................317

7.2.4Legitimate Aim......................................................................334

7.2.5Conclusion............................................................................334

7.3Proportionality..................................................................................335

7.3.1Introduction...........................................................................335

7.3.2Suitability (Effectiveness).....................................................336

7.3.3Necessity...............................................................................337

7.3.4Non-excessiveness................................................................343

7.3.5Conclusion............................................................................343
7.4Purpose Limitation............................................................................343

7.4.1Introduction...........................................................................343

7.4.2Scans.....................................................................................344

7.4.3CCTV....................................................................................344


x

Contents

7.4.4PNR.......................................................................................347
7.4.5Conclusion............................................................................357
7.5Minimality.........................................................................................357
7.5.1Introduction...........................................................................357
7.5.2Scans.....................................................................................360
7.5.3CCTV....................................................................................361
7.5.4PNR.......................................................................................366
7.5.5Conclusion............................................................................370
7.6Non-retention of Data Beyond a Certain Period of Time.................371
7.6.1Scans.....................................................................................371
7.6.2CCTV....................................................................................371
7.6.3PNR.......................................................................................373
7.7Data Quality......................................................................................375
7.7.1Scans.....................................................................................376
7.7.2CCTV....................................................................................377
7.7.3PNR.......................................................................................378
7.8Data Security.....................................................................................378
7.8.1Scans.....................................................................................379
7.8.2CCTV....................................................................................379

7.8.3PNR.......................................................................................380
7.9Data Subjects’ Rights........................................................................382
7.9.1Consent..................................................................................382
7.9.2Access, Rectification and Deletion.......................................383
7.10Concluding Remarks.........................................................................387

Part III  Conclusion
8Conclusion..................................................................................................397
8.1Returning to Research Aims.............................................................397
8.2Regulation Issues..............................................................................398

8.2.1Introduction...........................................................................398

8.2.2Legal Regulation...................................................................399

8.2.3Enforcement of Regulation...................................................402

8.2.4Legal Principles.....................................................................404

8.2.5Privacy Impact Assessment...................................................409

8.2.6Concluding Remarks.............................................................412
8.3Privacy by Design.............................................................................413
8.4Improving Passenger Experience......................................................417

8.4.1Impact on Passengers............................................................418

8.4.2Impact of Human Rights Concerns on Security....................419
8.5Concluding Remarks.........................................................................421

www.ebook3000.com


Contents

xi

Abbreviations................................................................................................... 423
Annexes............................................................................................................. 425
Annex 1: ICAO PNR Guidelines, PNR Data Elements...............................425
Annex 2: EU-US PNR Agreement, PNR Data Types..................................426
Annex 3: EU PNR Directive, Passenger Name Record Data as Far
as Collected by Air Carriers.........................................................................427
Annex 4: Russian PNR System, PNR Data Types.......................................428
Selected Sources and Materials......................................................................431
Table of Legislation and Other Legal Texts.................................................431
International............................................................................................431

European Union......................................................................................432
UK...........................................................................................................434
Norway...................................................................................................434
USA........................................................................................................434

Russian Federation..................................................................................434
Books and Articles.......................................................................................435
Reports and Other Resources.......................................................................450


Table of Cases

European Court of Human Rights
A. and Others v. the United Kingdom, No. 3455/05, 19 Feb 2009.
Ahmet Arslan and Others, No. 41135/98, 23 Feb 2010.
Aksoy v. Turkey, No. 21987/93, 18 Dec 1996.
Aktas v. France, No. 43563/08, declared inadmissible 30 Jun 2009.
Amann v. Switzerland, No. 27798/95, 16 Feb 2000.
Bayatyan v. Armenia, No. 23459/03, 7 Jul 2011.
Brannigan and McBride v. the United Kingdom, No. 14553/89, 25 May 1993.
Campbell v. the United Kingdom, No. 13590/88, 25 Mar 1992.
Case “Relating to certain aspects of the laws on the use of languages in education
in Belgium” v. Belgium, No. 1474/62; 1677/62; 1691/62; 1769/63; 1994/63;
2126/64, 23 July 1968
Česnulevičius v. Lithuania, No. 13462/06, 10 Jan 2012.
Cyprus v. Turkey, No. 25781/94, 10 May 2001.
Dahlab v. Switzerland, No. 42393/98, declared inadmissible 15 Feb 2001.
El Morsli v. France, No. 15585/06, declared inadmissible 4 Mar 2008.
Erçep v. Turkey, No. 43965/04, 22 Nov 2011.
Fedorov and Fedorova v. Russia, No. 31008/02, 13 Oct 2005.
Gillan and Quinton v. the United Kingdom, No. 4158/05, 12 Jan 2010.
Huvig v. France, No. 11105/84, 24 April 1990.
Ireland v. the United Kingdom, No. 5310/71, 18 Jan 1978.
Kervanci v. France, No. 31645/04, 4 Dec 2008.
Khan v. the United Kingdom, No. 35394/97, 12 May 2000.
Klass and others v. Germany, No. 5029/71, 6 Sep 1978.
Kopp v. Switzerland, 13/1997/797/1000, 25 Mar 1998.
Kruslin v. France, No. 11801/85, 24 Apr 1990.
Lawless v. Ireland, No. 332/57, 1 July 1961.
Leander v. Sweden, No. 9248/81, 26 Mar 1987.
Leyla Sahin v. Turkey, No. 44774/98, 10 Nov 2005.
xiii

www.ebook3000.com


xiv

Table of Cases

Liberty and Others v. the United Kingdom, No. 58243/00, 1 July 2008.
Lingens v. Austria, No. 9815/82, 8 July 1986.
Luordo v. Italy, No. 32190/96, 17 Mar 2013.
Malone v. the United Kingdom, No. 8691/79, 2 Aug 1984.
Marper v. the United Kingdom, No. 30562/04 and 30566/04, 4 Dec 2008.
McFeeley v. the United Kingdom, No. 8317/78, 15 May 1980.
Miazdzyk v. Poland, No. 23592/07, 24 Jan 2012.
Ollson v. Sweden, No. 10465/83, 24 May 1988.
Peck v. the United Kingdom, No. 44647/98, 28 Jan 2003.
Prescher v. Bulgaria, No. 6767/04, 7 Jun 2011.
Rangelov v. Germany, No. 5123/07, 22 Mar 2012.
Riener v. Bulgaria, No. 46343/99, 23 May 2006.
S and Marper v. the United Kingdom, No. 30562/04 and 30566/04, 4 Dec 2008.
Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, No. 27996/06 and 34836/06, 22 Dec
2009.
Shimovolos v. Russia, No. 30194/09, 21 Jun 2011.
Soering v. the United Kingdom, No. 14038/88, 7 Jul 1989.
Stamose v. Bulgaria, No. 29713/05, 27 Nov 2012.
Uzun v. Germany, No. 35623/05, 2 Sep 2010.
Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, No. 46477/99, 14 March 2002.
Bromiley v. the United Kingdom (dec.), No. 33747/96, 23 Nov 1999.
Finogenov and others v. Russia, No. 18299/03 and 27311/03, 20 Dec 2011.

European Court of Justice
Case C–70/10, Scarlet Extended SA v. Société belge des auteurs, compositeurs et
éditeurs SCRL (SABAM), 24 Nov 2011.
Case C-73/07, Satamedia, 16 Dec 2008.
Case C 362/14, Maximillian Schrems v. Data Protection Commissioner, 6 Oct 2015.
Case C-101/01, Lindqvist, 6 Nov 2003.
Case C-131/12, Google Spain SL, Google Inc. v. Agencia Española de Protección
de Datos, Mario Costeja González, 13 May 2014.
Case C-465/00, Rechnungshof decision, 20 May 2003.
Case C-524/06, Heinz Huber v. Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 16 Dec 2008.
Case T-13/99, Pfizer Animal Health SA v. Council of the European Union, 11 Sep
2002.
Joined Cases C 293/12 and C 594/12, Digital Rights Ireland Ltd v. Minister for
Communications, etc., 8 Apr 2014.
Joined Cases C-317/04 and C-318/04, European Parliament v. Council of the
European Union, European Parliament v. Commission, 30 May 2006.
Joined cases C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P, Yassin Abdullah Kadi and Al Barakaat
International Foundation v Council and Commission, 3 Sept 2008.


Table of Cases

xv

Joined Cases C-92/09 and C-93/09 Volker und Markus Schecke GbR and Hartmut
Eifert v. Land Hessen, 9 November 2010.
Joined Cases C-141/12 and C-372/12, YS v Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en
Asiel and Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel v M and S., 17 July 2014.

USA
Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1 (1995), 1 March 1995.
EPIC v. DHS, 653 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2011), 15 July2011.
Gilmore v. Gonzales, 435 F. 3d 1125  - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 2006, 26
January 2006.
Hasbrouck v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Case number C 10-03793 RS,
U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, filed 25 August 2010.
Pavesich v. New England Life Insurance Co. Supreme Court of Georgia, 122 Ga.
190; 50 S.E. 68; 1905 Ga., 3 March 1905.
Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966), 20 June 1996.
Sima Prods. Corp. v. McLucas, 612 F.2d 309, 312–13 (7th Cir. 1980), 3 January1980.
United States v. Aukai, 497 F.3d 955-963 (9th Cir. 2007), 10 August 2007.
United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1, 14 (1973), 22 January 1973.
United States v. Epperson, 454 F.2d 769, 771 (4th Cir. 1971), 7 February 1972.

UK
Durant v. FSA [2003] EWCA Civ 1746, Court of Appeal (Civil Division) decision
of Lord Justices Auld, Mummery and Buxton (8 December 2003).
R v. Rooney [2006] EWCA Crim 1841 (12 July 2006).

www.ebook3000.com


List of Figures

Fig. 1.1

Privacy and data protection: overlap������������������������������������������������    4

Fig. 4.1

Aviation security system of Russia��������������������������������������������������  149

Fig. 5.1

Proportionality principle applied to privacy and security����������������  183

Fig. 6.1
Fig. 6.2
Fig. 6.3
Fig. 6.4

Aviation security measures in a standard airport ����������������������������  209
Aviation security measures in standard aircraft ������������������������������  211
Aviation security measures scope����������������������������������������������������  212
Explosive in rectum; ceramic knife, metal knife, phone,
scissors and screw driver������������������������������������������������������������������  230
Fig. 6.5 Privacy undertakings������������������������������������������������������������������������  232
Fig. 6.6 Video Analytics Processing��������������������������������������������������������������  245
Fig. 6.7 Profiling processing ������������������������������������������������������������������������  261
Fig. 6.8 Standard PNR system����������������������������������������������������������������������  276
Fig. 6.9 New security layers��������������������������������������������������������������������������  292
Fig. 6.10 Combination of aviation security technologies and sources������������  299
Fig. 7.1

Proportionality principle applied to scans, CCTV and PNR ����������  392

xvii

List of Tables

Table 2.1 Summary of national regulation and other features ������������������������   62
Table 4.1 Aircraft safety occurrences worldwide (1921–2015)����������������������  105
Table 4.2 Aviation security and other relevant regulation
in the selected states������������������������������������������������������������������������  152
Table 6.1 Profiling in relation to selected aviation security measures������������  258
Table 6.2 Privacy/data protection application for CCTV��������������������������������  269
Table 6.3 Aviation security measures’ impact on privacy
and data protection��������������������������������������������������������������������������  303
Table 6.4 Aviation security measures’ impact on human rights����������������������  304
Table 7.1 Aviation security measures and suitability and necessity����������������  391
Table 7.2 Relation between aviation security measures
and privacy and data protection principles��������������������������������������  391
Table 7.3 Relation between aviation security measures
and other human rights��������������������������������������������������������������������  392

xix

www.ebook3000.com


Chapter 1

Introduction

1.1  Background and Subject Matter
As the title of this work explicitly reflects, the discussion will mainly deal with two
groups of issues: aviation security and privacy, data protection and other human
rights. While aviation security is mainly aimed at preventing acts of unlawful interference with civil aviation1 and relates to the state’s undertakings to protect persons,

aircraft, airport facilities and other material assets from harm, there are also various
fundamental human rights instruments aimed at protecting not only the right to life,
but also other rights and freedoms of individuals.
“Individuals” or “persons”2 in both cases, within the civil aviation field, mean
people: air passengers, crew, and people on the ground.3 This research concentrates
on air passengers, since this category is the principal concern when it comes to
security screenings, personal data collection and transfer, as well as other methods
that impact on human rights. Although statistically only a small part of the worlds’

 It is common to differentiate between two types of aviation: civil aviation and state aviation. Civil
aviation mainly refers to commercial and other needs of the citizens and economy. In this research,
civil aviation will mainly imply the commercial aspect and will refer to transportation of
passengers.
2
 Used as synonymous.
3
 People on the ground (non-passengers) may include different persons: those meeting their relatives or friends at the airport arrival halls (they may be subject to a part of security control such as
metal detectors at the airport entrance, e.g. in Moscow), airport staff (are usually subject to special
control) or just people who can suffer being in the neighbourhood of a terrorist attack (e.g. if the
bomb is put in a car near the airport, or if the exploded airplane falls onto civil buildings, etc.).
Aviation security certainly endeavours to protect all these people as well. As I will explain in Sect.
4.5.3, aviation security covers the airport infrastructure too, thus, it extends to such elements as
airport train stations, taxi areas, etc. However, people on the ground are usually subject to a much
lesser degree of control/surveillance than passengers.
1

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017
O.M. Enerstvedt, Aviation Security, Privacy, Data Protection and Other Human
Rights: Technologies and Legal Principles, Law, Governance and Technology
Series 37, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-58139-2_1

1


2

1 Introduction

population travels by air, this number is constantly growing,4 thus, aviation security
measures may potentially concern a substantial part of people.
Screenings and other aviation security measures at airports have become a part
of day-to-day life and culture for millions of people all around the world, so that
people seem to accept that there is no other way to keep them safe in the air.5 The
scope of these procedures, their obligatory nature, as well as possible negative consequences in the event of failure to be subject to the security measures are outlined
for instance, in the airlines’ carriage conditions available on the websites:
Passengers and/or their baggage are subject to security screening, including but not limited
to, security profiling, physical pat-downs and inspections, x-ray screening, manual bag
searches, questioning of Passengers, and use of electronic or other detectors or screening or
security devices, in the sole discretion of the government, airport or UA (United Airlines),
and with or without the Passenger‘s presence, consent or knowledge. Neither UA nor its
employees or agents is liable for any damage, loss, delay (including refusal to transport),
confiscation of property, injury or other harm relating to or arising out of security screening
conducted by an agent of the airport or any local, state, or federal agency or a Passenger’s
failure to submit to or comply with such security screening.6

On the one hand, the general public often considers aviation security measures
that are designed to enhance security as positive developments. On the other hand,
it is clear that they have a heavy impact on the processing of passengers at the airport. For most travellers screening and other procedures constitute an additional
inconvenience and the most uncomfortable part of their entire journey.7 They are
time-consuming: before 9/11, the average checkpoint processed 350 passengers per

hour; today fewer than 150 per hour are processed,8 in some cases intrusively, with
increasing costs that are ultimately passed on to passengers.
The inconveniences to passengers definitely may include problems connected
with their rights as human beings. This is particularly important for this work: some
aviation security measures, technologies, or methods may have impact on the individuals’ rights, so that these rights may be interfered with, limited or violated. Civil
rights organizations and advocates cry out against violations of individuals’ liberties
and freedoms in aviation security.9
It should be noted that despite the fact that human rights are under threat in general, i.e. this is a concern of all persons, only some individuals will ultimately bear
the full (or any) cost of the violations.10 Clearly, only a small selection of the air
passengers will be subject to additional screening due to profiling techniques or will
 E.g. 3.3 billion passengers were transported in 2014 worldwide. See Chap. 4.
 Simmons. Searching for Terrorists: Why “Public Safety” is not a Special Need (2009) p. 912.
6
 Rule 20 Screening of passengers and baggage. United Air Lines, Inc. Contract of Carriage
(revised 31 December 2015), />7
 Ghee. Recommendations for airports and airlines to improve baggage, security, immigration,
arrivals and more in 2015 (2015).
8
 IATA. Remarks of Tony Tyler at the IATA Ops Conference in Vienna, 15 April 2013. http://www.
iata.org/pressroom/speeches/Pages/2013-04-15-01.aspx.
9
 See, e.g. websites of ACLU: and EPIC: .
10
 McDonagh. Risk, human rights and the bureacratisation of counter-terrorism (2011) p. 10.
4
5

www.ebook3000.com

1.1  Background and Subject Matter

3

be prohibited from flying due to their names appearing on a black list. However,
hypothetically, no one can be guaranteed that their name might appear on such a list
by mistake, or they might otherwise be targeted due to technologies’ false positives.
Thus, the fact that the potential rights violation pertains to only a few does not make
the problem of possible violations less important.
The key word for security measures is surveillance, which can be defined as “the
focused, systematic and routine attention to personal details for purposes of influence, management, protection, or direction”.11 There are multiple forms of surveillance; for aviation security, most common forms include camera surveillance
(CCTV – Closed Circuit Television),12 the use of biometrics, the use of data mining
and profiling.13
At the same time, a dual nature of surveillance can be noted: on the one hand,
surveillance, if properly used, can contribute to security, protection from crimes, but
on the other hand, surveillance itself may present a threat to individuals, communities and societies because of its ubiquity, intensity and use of personal data; moreover, it is argued that “broad surveillance is a mark of bad security”.14 Government
surveillance is directed at all of persons, including innocent people, and this is normally done in secret, with little or no oversight.15 Although there are democratic
procedural constraints, effective oversight and control may be very difficult to
ensure as long as the power is exercised by large companies, state organizations and
intelligence agencies.16
As a result, citizens are often unaware of the most questionable surveillance
methods, such as camera surveillance, creation and storage of different dossiers and
black lists that may affect the ability to fly, require additional screening, etc. In a
state of mass surveillance, personal rights and freedoms are severely limited, as
clearly predicted in Orwell’s book “1984”.
In the public debates, the right to privacy is frequently the first to be mentioned
in this regard. Many security measures and technologies provoke “anxiety, protest,
and resistance”17 specifically in relation to privacy. “Security versus privacy” has
become a common expression. In 2013, the enhanced discussion of privacy, mainly
in connection with PRISM and the Edward Snowden revelations as well as the

removal of “naked” body scanners from American airports and other events, made
Dictionary.com declare “privacy” word of the year.18 However, is it merely a word
 Lyon. Surveillance studies: An overview (2007a) p. 14.
 In the literature, “CCTV” is used as generic term camera surveillance. Although CCTV does not
amount to camera surveillance, as explained in Chap. 6, these terms will be used as synonymous
in this research.
13
 All these terms will be elaborated in detail in Chap. 6.
14
 Wright [et al.] Questioning surveillance. In: Computer Law & Security Review. Vol. 31 (2015)
pp. 281–282, Schneier Schneier on security (2008) pp. 8, 69.
15
 ACLU. Surveillance and Privacy. />16
 Wright et al. (2015) p. 282.
17
 Nissenbaum. Privacy in context (2010) p. 3.
18
 Dictionary.com: 17 December 2013.
11
12


4

1 Introduction

Fig. 1.1  Privacy and data
protection: overlap

of the year? Schneier calls security versus privacy “the battle of the century:” which

of these values is more important, how much privacy are you willing to give up for
security?19
In this respect, it should be stressed that the rights to privacy and data protection
are interrelated and partly overlap, as shown in Fig. 1.1.
The key words for this research from Lyon’s definition of surveillance are “personal details”. The point is that personal data have direct relation to the rights of
privacy, which protects, among other things, private information20 pertaining to
individuals, and data protection, which can be seen as one of the dimensions of
privacy or as a separate right.
It is not surprising, then, that the term “data privacy” is commonly used, or the
term “dataveillance” used in reference to the phenomenon of data being used to
monitor and surveil citizens.21 Through extensive data protection regulation, at least
in the EU and some other states, it is quite clear that data – if they satisfy the requirements of being personal and being processed22 – should be protected. The term “privacy”, however, is less clear.
Consequently, a question arises as to what privacy is. Numerous theoretical conceptions have been advanced as definitions for the term, but none of them has
become common or universally accepted. Moreover, persons’ views on this value
do not remain static and can change according to the context, other needs and other
factors. In many books and articles, the death or the end of privacy is predicted,23
mainly due to total surveillance and pervasive databases. Everything depends, of
course, on what one means by the term privacy. Clearly, privacy as total secrecy is
not the most suitable today,24 nor applicable, especially in public places such as
airports. However, privacy nevertheless can be protected, but this should be done
taking the new contexts into account. In the airports, the context – providing a­ viation

 Schneier (2008) p. 69.
 Data and information are used as synonyms in this research.
21
 Clarke. Information technology and dataveillance. In: Communications of the ACM.  Vol. 31
(1988). p. 498–512.
22
 See Chap. 2.
23

 E.g. Garfinkel. Database nation: the death of privacy in the 21st century (2000), Rubenfeld. The
End of Privacy. In: Stanford law review (2008). In January 2015, Science dedicated its special
issue to “The end of privacy”.
24
 Solove. The end of privacy? In: Scientific American. Vol. 299 (2008b) p. 104.
19
20

www.ebook3000.com


1.1  Background and Subject Matter

5

security to the passengers – and distinguishing between different types of privacy
are key factors for defining privacy.25
From a broader perspective, privacy can be considered a component of other
human rights, a necessary condition for them to function: without privacy, “it is
much harder for dissent to flourish or for democracy to remain healthy and robust”.26
The status of the right to privacy in a particular society can demonstrate, first, what
is being sacrificed to security, and secondly, the status of all human rights as the
whole, since this right is “the fundamental precondition so that other rights and
liberties can be exercised”.27 The right to privacy is not only an individual value, but
a common, political value as well, since the abuse of privacy by surveillance technologies may lead to authoritarian regimes having an impact on the population as a
whole.28 In this situation, on the one hand, privacy can be seen as an antidote to
surveillance29: raising its status can contribute to upholding all human rights. On the
other hand, the weakness of privacy in a particular society is as a rule accompanied
by other human rights concerns.
The point is that all human rights are interdependent, indivisible and interrelated.30 This means that violating one right may often impair the enjoyment of other

human rights, and vice versa. This idea can be well illustrated by the aviation security measures: in addition to privacy/data protection concerns, they often have
impact on other fundamental human rights, in particular, the right to equal treatment
and non-discrimination, freedom of movement, etc. Accordingly, the right to privacy alone cannot accommodate all of the negative effects of aviation security.
Hence the scope of the issue is argued to be broader – human rights versus security or liberty versus control31 – since humans are interested in both security and
other human rights, and it is the state and other agencies’ control and surveillance
functions that interfere.
It should be noted that the term “aviation security” can be seen in two dimensions. First, aviation security is ultimately aimed at protecting, among other things,
the right to life of passengers and other persons. In other words, all human beings
have the right to be safeguarded from harms – it is also possible to speak about the
individuals’ right to security.32 Therefore, security involves elements of human
rights. Effective security in this sense contributes to the right to life. The latter
belongs to peremptory norms or jus cogens, that is, not being subject to any
 See Chap. 2.
 Vermeulen and Bellanova. European ‘smart’surveillance: What’s at stake for data protection,
privacy and non-discrimination? In: Security and Human Rights. Vol. 23 (2013) p. 305.
27
 Poullet. Data protection legislation: What is at stake for our society and democracy? In:
Computer Law & Security Review. Vol. 25 (2009) p. 226.
28
 Vermeulen and Bellanova (2013) p. 305.
29
 Amicelli. Report on Theoretical Frameworks and Previous Empirical Research (2012a) p. 14.
30
 See Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action (A/CONF.157/23), adopted by the World
Conference on Human Rights, held in Vienna, 14–25 June 1993.
31
 Schneier (2008) p. 70.
32
 See Lyon. Surveillance after september 11 (2003a).
25

26


6

1 Introduction

d­ erogation. Taking into account the threats of terrorism and the amount of harm that
may cause a successful attack on an aircraft, the right to life may be used as a strong
argument for the enhanced security.
Secondly, aviation security, as defined in legal instruments, involves in general
different measures and human and material resources intended to safeguard civil
aviation against acts of unlawful interference that may jeopardize the security of
civil aviation.33 In the civil aviation sector, the necessity of safeguarding people
from terrorism and crime is obvious. Moreover, this sector has immense importance
to the world economy. Its assets, aircraft, airports and infrastructure, constitute considerable economic value and should be protected as well. At the same time, the
threat of terrorist attacks against civil aviation is deemed to be heightened. Hence,
the connection between the threats and advanced security measures seems to be
clear. The latter is a logical consequence of the former.
The aviation security-privacy dilemma is quite visible here: implementation of
different measures, procedures and methods is designed to protect individuals, but
may have tensions with the individuals’ rights. A clear result is what Lyon calls a
paradox – the side effect that many aviation security measures justified by security
risks and fight against terrorism actually produce risks themselves – in relation to
privacy, data protection and other liberties.34 Compromises to privacy/data protection/other human rights can be considered as the costs to be paid for a security
decision.
Actual surveillance may start long before you enter the airport, for instance, at
the moment you reserve a plane ticket and fill out various personal data fields.
Different systems collect personal data of passengers, use and share them with other
systems for further checks, data mining, profiling and so on. The opportunities for

surveillance are constantly growing along with technological developments: high-­
tech “smart” camera surveillance using biometrics, body scanners, security tunnels
and so on.
What is next? How much security is enough? How far can the states and security
organs go in their attempts to find the most effective measures? To illustrate an
absurd situation, security professionals ironically demonstrate a picture of “security
of the future” showing naked passengers on board the aircraft, i.e. deprived of any
privacy at all. In general, “If passengers are divesting items and holding their arms
up like criminals, then the terrorists have won by fundamentally changing our core
values”.35
A common suggestion is the idea of finding a balance between the privacy and
security values. In other words, we should balance privacy or, broadly stated, liberty
against security using the so-called trade-off model. More details will be elaborated
in Chap. 5, but in general, it is not possible to increase one of the values without
decreasing the other.
 Article 3 of Regulation No 300/2008.
 Lyon. Globalizing Surveillance Comparative and Sociological Perspectives. In: International
Sociology. Vol. 19 (2004) p. 137.
35
 Sagi-Dolev. Manufacturer Perspectives. In: Aviation Security International. Vol. 19 (2013) p. 26.
33
34

www.ebook3000.com


1.1  Background and Subject Matter

7

This is easy to understand. It is obvious that security, which is vital to survival,
is more important than privacy, which is a social and political need but is not an
immediate matter of survival.36 To the contrary: in the worst case, privacy can be
seen as “a mere abstraction, a luxury with little concrete value”.37 Only when the
security needs are satisfied is it possible to consider the privacy needs at all.38 Thus,
frightened by terrorist attacks, people tend to choose security over privacy. In these
circumstances, the process of balancing became a strategy of the security measures
proponents,39 where the risks of terrorism and crime are supposed to rationalize the
need for enhanced security measures, typically exemplified by the enhanced measures introduced after the 9/11 attacks.
The balancing concept is subject to criticism, first because it justifies the compromises to privacy and other human rights.40 It is proposed that instead, the test of
proportionality should be used. By using the latter, it can be evaluated whether a
concrete security measure is suitable, necessary, without any other less intrusive
alternatives, non-excessive, and so on. Applying these criteria allows us to assess
whether the privacy risks caused by this measure are proportionate to its security
benefits and other factors.41 In addition, mechanisms of protection, including redress
for abuses, are actually provided by the concept of human rights in general and
privacy/data protection regimes in particular.42
To summarize: aviation security as an element of human rights contributes to the
right to life (or freedom from harm), constituting a good argument for enhanced
security. At the same time, aviation security as such, i.e. as broader security demands
including measures, resources, security decisions, evaluation of threats, risk assessment, etc. – overall leads to enhanced surveillance and control and, consequently, to
human rights concerns.
The dilemma to be examined in this work conveyed through the widespread
expression “security versus privacy” is the aviation-security-versus-privacy-data-­­
protection-and-other-human-rignts dilemma. The rights to privacy and data protection are the focus of this research and are used to evaluate the selected security
measures. But, since other human rights may be relevant, and, as discussed, aviation
security is a matter of human rights, they will also be discussed on an additional
basis to better reflect the situation: simultaneous violation of a number of human
rights makes the whole aggregated impact of aviation security measures on an individual more serious. For the convenience of the reader, further, the term “security

 Schneier (2008) p. 70.
 Spencer. Security Versus Privacy: Reframing the Debate. In: Denver University Law Review.
Vol. 79 (2002) p. 519.
38
 Aquilina. Public security versus privacy in technology law: A balancing act? In: Computer Law
& Security Review. Vol. 26 (2010) p. 135.
39
 Spencer (2002) p. 519.
40
 See Chap. 5.
41
 See Chap. 5.
42
 See Chaps. 3 and 2 respectively.
36
37


8

1 Introduction

versus privacy” will be used as synonymous to “aviation security versus privacy,
data protection and other human rights”.
Since this research will use the proportionality test rather than balancing as an
approach to the dilemma, the latter cannot be considered exclusively as a tension
between opposites. Both values are important for society; what is needed is to find
a way to ensure all of them, without losing one or the other. The “ideal” model of
interactions between aviation security and privacy, therefore, will be aviation security plus privacy, aviation security and privacy.

1.2  Aims of the Research
As a result of existing research, it is quite well known that security measures, including those in aviation security, have tensions with human rights in general and with
privacy and data protection specifically. However, the pro-privacy side focuses on
privacy interests rather than aviation security interests. The latter tends to remain in
the “shadows”. In addition, substantial research covers mainly the EU, the USA and
the Western states in general. There is some lack in the research at the international
level and at the national level of non-Western states.
Using existing research extensively, this work analyses different security measures, methods and technologies in civil aviation from the perspective of their
impact on the rights to privacy and data protection as well as related individuals’
rights, including the right to health, freedom of movement, the right to equal treatment and non-discrimination, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and
rights of the child. In short, the main objective is to discuss what can be considered
proportionate security, taking into account privacy/data protection other human
rights concerns.
The following sub-aims can be indicated.
1. To discuss whether the use of the selected aviation security measures: body scanners, camera surveillance and Passenger Name Record (PNR) systems43
(“selected measures”), in particular their impact on privacy and data protection,
corresponds to legal principles of privacy and data protection. Thus, to some
extent, the research will analyse the situation de lege lata – but subject to limitations and on an illustrative basis.44
2. To describe the selected measures, their background, emergence and contemporary usage. In other words, the situation will be analysed de facto. This is particularly important, since for privacy/liberty-security debate, not only privacy/liberty
interests, but also security interests should be better understood and more

 Transfer of air passenger data from airlines to state authorities, with further analysis of these data
for security and other purposes. See more details in Chap. 6.
44
 See more details below.
43

www.ebook3000.com