The Intersection of Technology and Individual Rights
On the one hand, in the present day, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations is supposed to protect the rights of individuals across the globe. Moreover, citizens’ human rights are guaranteed by state legislation as well – thus, in the United States, basic inherent rights are guaranteed by the Constitution. On the other hand, in the modern globalized world, the development of technology presupposes the facilitation of human labor, connectedness between people, and the improvement of life quality.
However, technological advancements are associated with the reduction of individuals’ human rights caused by various factors. In particular, as technological progress is associated with substantial changes in people’s lifestyles, human opportunities and freedom become limited. At the same time, according to Land and Aronson, “technologies that scholars and practitioners once thought would democratize human rights fact finding have been weaponized by state and non-state actors” (223). In other words, they are used for disinformation, surveillance, and control.
With the global spread of automation and artificial intelligence (AI), people’s right to employment and decent work is endangered. Moreover, additional challenges are created by the uneven pace of technological progress (Land and Aronson 224). For instance, machine learning provides multiple opportunities for people as it allows them to collect and analyze huge amounts of information to support appropriate decision-making in all spheres of human activity. At the same time, technology is not equally accessible across demographics and geographies. As a result, this tendency contributes to discrimination and related violations of human rights.
With the invention of social media platforms and the Internet of Things, users received an opportunity to communicate, share information, and express themselves. At the same time, a person’s right to privacy may be threatened by poor distinction between public and private spheres. In other words, technology facilitates cybercrimes, violating the right to privacy. Moreover, “the use of technology can obscure and fragment authority and thus disable the mechanisms that human rights advocates and civil society organizations use to promote accountability” (Land and Aronson 224). Therefore, neither the protection of human rights nor punishment for their violation are guaranteed. In addition, authorities’ manipulations with technology frequently occur in order to limit human rights to the freedom of speech and expression.
The Impact of Airport Scanners on Personal Privacy
However, in the case of airport scanners, the intentional violation of the individual’s rights caused by security purposes is observable. In other words, the use of security scanners that allow the observation of private body parts violates the right to privacy provided by the Ninth Amendment and the Bill of Rights. This case demonstrates the necessity to restrict people’s freedoms if their protection may lead to tragic consequences. Human security presupposes the continuous identification of new potential threats to societal well-being that require the introduction of new processes, duties, and practices to avoid new victims.
As a result, from a personal perspective, the individual perception of such restrictions should be based on the assessment of their necessity within the framework of potential negative consequences and their scope. For instance, if the 9/11 attacks demonstrated the vulnerability of society and the possibility of a similar act’s occurrence at any place, any measures that contribute to its prevention are justified.
Personal Perspective: Would I Accept Full-Body Scanning for Security?
Therefore, I agree to subordinate my rights to the public good – in other words, I will allow myself to be screened with a scanner that reveals every part of my body under the justification of improving public safety. As previously mentioned, the restriction of human rights may have different reasons. In the case of scanners, it is caused by security measures that help prevent terrorist attacks and other crimes. Therefore, I understand that these limitations are beneficial for me as well as I may become a victim as well. In this case, my rights are violated not for disinformation, manipulation, discrimination, or oppression.
In addition, refusal related to this measure may be regarded as unreasonable as it is not innovative and unique. Passengers’ luggage is scanned as well – thus, the right to privacy is already affected. Moreover, I clearly understand that all staff involved in this procedure are bound with duties rather than personal interests. In other words, they are interested in the provision of safety and the detection of suspicious objects more than in the observation of my body. As the health care provider’s examination and medical assistance cannot be regarded as a violation of privacy, I may detect similarities with airport checks as well.
Works Cited
Land, Molly K., and Jay D. Aronson. “Human Rights and Technology: New Challenges for Justice and Accountability.” Annual Review of Law and Social Science, vol.16, 2020, pp. 223-240. Web.
Singh, Maanvi. “Delta Smelt: The Tiny Fish Caught in California’s War with Trump.” The Guardian. 2022. Web.