As early as 2002 the Scandinavian Airlines (SAS) have been considered using biometrics to beef up security. SAS state in a press release dated 2002-05-06 that they are evaluating biometrics to improve check-in and embarkation procedures. In the press release (reported here in the Swedish newspaper DI) they refer to the 9/11 attacks (naturally â?? what else?).
On 30 March 2006 the Swedish Data Inspection has given SAS permission (Swedish Press Release) to use fingerprints on domestic flights to ensure that persons handing in luggage are also on the flight. The goal is to have 1.4 million passengers voluntarily leave their fingerprints to a local database. When the passenger begins her flight the information in the database is erased.
Naturally the scheme is a violation of personal integrity. The Data Inspection legitimises its decision by pointing out that the data is only stored for a brief time and that the system is voluntary.
By waving the flag of freedom of choice the Airline company, the Data Inspection and others are practicing the art of spin to a marvellous degree. Any and all complaints against a voluntary system can be easily ignored. The critic can be derided since the system is voluntary â?? if you donâ??t like it then donâ??t do it.
This is, I believe, to miss the whole point.
We have all been taught to defend our rights but the question is then why people do not react when things like this happen in front of their eyes? The reason is that we are prepared to fight the strong foe but we have no defence against the â??Salami Tacticâ??. The Salami Tactic is the opposite of brute force it is hardly even a fight. It entails taking over something slice by slice. Each step in itself so small that it is not worth retaliation â?? Any protest against a slice being taken can again be defended by the freedom of choice argument. The critic is over-reacting. If someone was to attempt to take the whole salami at once reactions would be legitimate. Not to react would be a sign of weakness. To react when someone takes a slice is a sign of a petty mind.
This is the weakness of a strong democracy.
The voluntary nature of this scheme, and indeed others like it, undermines the present rights argument since we cannot fight. The voluntary nature of the scheme is also problematic when this scheme gradually becomes the norm. Then the person wishing to maintain the voluntary status and not participate is seen by everyone as being difficult and relatively socially inept.
There will be no protests, there will be a rush to accept this scheme. Everyone will sing its praises: frequent fliers will sing about efficiency, police about security and the airline will sing about profit. Those who will not sing will sit in embarrassed silence while another slice of our rights is lost forever.