User:Travelqueen27/sandbox

Week 11 Peer Review by Tm670

Great job on the article! I love that you mention how it intertwines with “airport security,” though I feel this point can be better incorporated as part of the definition. Rewording airport privacy as a “practice” or something close to that rather than a concept might also help improve this flow. I think the rest of the article does a great job on outlining the aftermath of 9/11 and how this particular subject was directly influenced by the events you describe.

However, I think that a section on the social impact and possible discrimination might be a great addition to your article overall. As I am sure you know, there is deep racial profiling these days and I think it might add a critical edge to all the wonderful and academic work you have done! I am just making these suggestions because you did so well throughout and only see this growing more and more. Awesome job!

Week 10 Peer Review by Edit4Change

Overall your page is really strong. There is a lot of great information and I learned a lot about airport security. There were a few sentences I would recommend clarifying.

While 9/11 was a transitioning factor, I think it is important to also give value to other terrorist attacks that happened. You fo this by making 9/11 an example of a terrorist attack that led to a change in security measures. "After the 9/11 attacks and multiple other terrorist attacks, airports all over the world looked to the advancement of new technology such as body and baggage screening, detection dogs, facial recognition, and the use of biometrics in electronic passports." -> "Several terrorist attacks, such as 9/11, have led airports all over the world looked to the advancement of new technology such as body and baggage screening, detection dogs, facial recognition, and the use of biometrics in electronic passports."

This following line seems a bit repetitive and can be condensed. This is in your intro section for Airport Privacy. "Amidst the introduction of new technology and security measures in airports there has been a rise of risk and concern in privacy. As the growing rate of travelers increases each year this involves more people and much more privacy matters at risk." -> "Amidst the introduction of new technology and security measures in airports and the growing rate of travelers there has been a rise of risk and concern in privacy."

Another line that can be changed is "A metal detectors ability to only detect metal weapons made it inefficient in detecting other weapons that were nonmetal such as liquids, sharp objects, or explosives." -> I think there is a bit of ability with the word "other." You can clarify that by just mentioning that metal detectors were inefficient at detecting nonmetal weapons. "A metal detectors ability to only detect metal weapons made it inefficient in detecting nonmetals such as liquids, sharp objects, or explosives."

Additionally, I really like that you added a laws and legistiations sections. For that part, I would recommend ordering the laws and cases in chronological order, so that a clear timeline can be seen.

Overall, I really liked reading through your page. There was a lot of great information and I learned a lot.

Week 9 Peer Review by King666Field

Excellent work on your draft! The article structure of history, technology and legality is clear and coherent, and the history section explains the arising controversy of enhancing airport security while protecting individual privacy nicely. Also, the technology section has abundant content and I really learn a lot techniques that TSA use while I'm reading this section. The legality also sets up potential violation under law. I think the history section is fine, and the technology section might need citation on the events under the subsections of "camera surveillance" and "biometric system". For the legality section, I think it would be nice if you point out how the airport might violate the fourth amendment, and also might be great if the title can be "legality in the United States" to specifically point to the legal cases in the United States but not others like EU. I think the whole article has an encyclopedic and objective tone. There is no so much typos or grammar mistakes (although I find one confusing under the subsection of "body screening", the second sentence of the third paragraph where you mention "The United States and European Union allow a travel the option of refusing screening procedures and instead go through a pat-down", the travel might refer to "traveler"). I feel easy reading this text while learning as well. Great work after all!

Week 8 Peer Review by StarShine44

Your draft looks great. There are a few issues with spaces between the last letter and a period, but as far as grammar and spelling, it looks good. The history section sets up the topic nicely. I like the organization and flow of the article. The tone is encyclopedic and objective. You go into nice detail with each subject so it is easily understood and related back to your topic. There are a few areas I would ask for a citation (such as body screening and baggage screening). It still looks like a work in progress (I think all of ours do, mine certainly does!!), but it is a work that is on the right track. I can't find much to criticize at this point. Starshine44 (talk) 05:28, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Week #08 Review by Nsjlcuwdbcc

This is a really good draft! Overall, the tone is encyclopedic and the content is clear. You give a really good explanation on the history section. All the cases and examples you involved are really helpful to understand the issue with airport privacy. Also, I think the technology section is really nice, especially there are some examples which makes the content more understandable! And you make a really good balance between each section. Personally, I think there are some terms which you could add hyperlinks, since they are pretty technical. Also, I think some concerns could also be addressed under different technologies, which might make the explanation more objective! This is really nice to keep working on!!

Week 6 Peer Review–Privacy 4353
Valeria,

Good work on your first draft so far!

I thought your lead section could be broken up and clarified a bit more. For instance, you should try providing a precise definition in one or two sentences for the first paragraph that encapsulates your topic. It also seemed like the coverage in certain sections, particularly the history section and privacy concerns sections, could be increased. I also found it concerning that you didn’t start citing sources until the “sniffer dog” section. Do you really know all of that information or is it common knowledge? If not, you should make sure to cite where you found the information throughout the entire article. If I were to look that the lead section by itself, I would likely understand the importance of the topic and would have a somewhat better grasp of the most important information in the article. In addition, it appears like you’re using a lot of source three, so I would make sure to vary your sources as well.

Peer Review - QuixoticWindmills

Overall, I think this draft is a good start. I like the overall structure, the progression of the sections makes sense to me. I especially like the Legality and Precedence section: it’s informative but also general, and I get a comprehensive understanding of different cases. If this article is solely about US airport security, you may want to specify that somewhere, or maybe add a section for international airport security. I’m not entirely sure what the Addressing Privacy Concerns section is supposed to mean; the article seems to already be about privacy concerns regarding airports. I think each of the sections need a bit more filling out (especially the history and addressing privacy concerns sections) and citations, but that might be something you were already planning on working on. Maybe this is more of a personal opinion, but I would dial back the exact percentages and numbers in the article and instead use more general terms. It might give off the signal that those parts of the article are only based on one source/study, which could lead to bias. I would also consider talking about controversies regarding the various technologies or court cases. There are grammar and formatting errors throughout, but most seem to be the result of a work in progress. I would say a bigger issue is some parts are worded awkwardly - try to rephrase things to sound more natural.

 Copy Edit: 

Airport privacy is the concept of personal privacy rights for airplane passengers, which concerns screening procedures, surveillance, and collection of personal data at airports. After the 9/11 terrorist attacks and other similar attacks, airports all over the world have increased security measures utilizing newer technologies such as body scanning, face (is this face or facial recognition?) recognition, and biometrics in electronic passports. Privacy risks and concerns have increased along with the number of travelers passing through airports.

 History of Airport Policies 

Before the 9/11 terrorist attacks, airports in the United States mainly used metal detectors. (maybe describe the failures of the old metal detector system?) After the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the United States, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) increased airport security measures significantly, including implementing policies prohibiting liquids, sharp objects, and explosives in carry on luggage.

 Technology and Privacy 

Body Screening

Body screening technology is able to detect any harmful materials under a traveler's clothes, as well as any harmful materials that may have been consumed. (describe what the technology is/how it detects things?) A study done at The Palm Beach airport showed that the false alarm rate was approximately 0.4% of total face captures which is equivalent to about 2-3 false alarms per hour. Also, out of the 958 total combined attempts there was a 47% success rate with 455 successful matches. (I would rephrase to be less specific, but I might not be right) The use of face recognition at the Super Bowl (explain how face recognition was used at the Super Bowl?) brought up concerns regarding the 4th (I think Fourth Amendment) Amendment right of all citizens which is unreasonable searches and seizures. The use of facial recognition in airports can be seen as a minor inconvenience when compared to the amount of screening already done throughout the airport. (this sounds like an opinion - needs explanation/citing, this could be an interesting paragraph by itself)

Sniffer Dogs/Detections Dogs

Detection dogs are utilized everywhere in airports, and specifically in baggage claim sections. Detection dogs are meant to prevent substances such as illegal drugs or explosives to enter the facility or leave it. The accuracy and reliability of these dogs have raised concerns, and which led to the creation of sniffer devices. These devices, also known as "chemical sniffers" or "electronic noses," are used to detect any trace of drugs and explosives. Odor, although not commonly thought to be connected with an individual’s privacy, is unique to every individual. Every individual has a characteristic odor known as the “body odor (odour corrected to odor, the US spelling (Wikipedia says to follow regional spelling for articles concerning those regions)) signature,” which can be used to identify characteristics such as gender, sexual orientation, health, diet and emotions like fear and happiness. The body odor signature is viewed as a biological footprint.

In the Lopez Ostra v Spain, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that odor does in fact have an effect on privacy and human rights.

Camera surveillance and random searches

Camera Surveillance in airports. (The opening needs to be reorganized/added to, I'm not sure if I fully understand it) An increase in camera surveillance then calls for an increase amount of personally stored data. A human machine interface is controlled by a person who operates the surveillance system to assess a situation. The operator is in control of the cameras and determines where the person will appear on the next camera. Face recognition has made its way to camera surveillance. A study done at The Palm Beach airport showed that the false alarm rate of face recognition surveillance was approximately 0.4% of total face captures which is equivalent to about 2-3 false alarms per hour and out of the 958 total combined attempts there was a 47% success rate with 455 successful matches. The use of face recognition the Super Bowl brought up concerns that pertained to the 4th Amendment right of all citizens which is unreasonable searches and seizures. The use of facial recognition in airports can be seen as a minor inconvenience when compared to the amount of screening already done throughout the airport. (This is recycled from body screening? Should facial recognition be its own section?)

Biometric Systems

Biometrics are human characteristics that are unique and generally permanent for every individual, such as fingerprints, speech, face, etc. Electronic gates, also known as e-gates, have become very common in airports because of their ability to verify travelers based on their biometric information. There are two types of privacy that are a concern when discussing e-gates, one is general privacy and the other is system-specific privacy which focuses on the beliefs regarding to the capability of the system to protect privacy. (Explain more about the two different types of privacy, sounds interesting) Europe is the first to have introduced e-gates in their airport facilities, and e-gates may soon be also used in US airports.

 Legality and Precedence 

The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures while also ensuring the protection of an individual's privacy. The Privacy Act of 1974 protects personal information when it is being processed by the federal government. (Generally italicize legal cases)

United States vs. Montoya de Hernandez (1985) ruled that an individual can be subject to an intrusive search, such as a body cavity, if authorities see it fit for the safety of others or themselves.

The US Supreme Court ruled in Illinois v. Caballes (2005) and United States v. Place (1983) that warrantless searches such as dog searches can be acted upon an individual without the need of suspicion. (maybe add more explanation about the implications about these decisions/precedents)

United States v. Guapi (1998) ruled that the police did not effectively communicate that the search was optional to the suspect. This type of issue occurs regularly in airports when a traveler is unaware of their privacy rights when it comes to unreasonable searches or alternative search methods available.

 Addressing Privacy Concerns 

When it comes to body screening at airports (doesn't sound very encyclopedic) there are alternative measures that a traveler may opt for to avoid getting body screened. The United States allows a traveler to refuse body screening and instead go through a pat-down. (other alternatives?)

QuixoticWindmills (talk) 00:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC) ~

Week 5 - Outline Airport Privacy
Airport privacy involves the right of personal privacy for passengers when it comes to screening procedures, surveillance, and personal data being stored at airports. After the 9/11 attacks and multiple other terrorist attacks, airports all over the world have increased security measures to include new advanced technology such as body scanning, face recognition, and the use of biometrics in electronic passports. Amidst the introduction of new technology and security measures in airports there has been a rise of risk and concern in privacy.

Subsections:


 * 1) History of Airport Policies
 * 2) How it has changed following the 9/11 attacks in the USA and other terrorist attacks in other countries
 * 3) Technology and Privacy
 * 4) Body Scanning Privacy
 * 5) Camera Surveillance and random searches in Airports
 * 6) Sniffer Dogs/Detection Dogs
 * 7) Odor is an identifier
 * 8) Biometric Systems
 * 9) E-gates, Global Entry, automated border control
 * 10) Legal Cases
 * 11) The Fourth Amendment
 * 12) Privacy Act of 1974
 * 13) United States vs. Montoya de Hernandez (1985)
 * 14) Florida v. Bostick, 1991
 * 15) Illinois v. Caballes, 2005
 * 16) United States v. Place, 1983
 * 17) Lopez Ostra v Spain (1994)
 * 18) Addressing Privacy concerns
 * 19) Alternative measures
 * 20) Studies done on the opinions from travelers and non-travelers

Related Wikipedia Pages:

Airport Security

September 11 Attacks

Epassport

Biometrics

Full Body Scanner

Automated Border Control System

Detection Dog

Airport Privacy
I will be writing an article which is most fitting to my username and that is on airport privacy. Having traveled domestically and internationally at various airports I have always been vigilant to the airport procedures taking place around me. I look forward to diving into the screening procedures and surveillance that is known and may not be known to travelers when traveling. I also will be adding to the conversation on the new technology that may soon be arriving to airports in the United States which are biometric systems. All these screenings and technology play into a traveler's privacy and rights which I plan to gather more specific information on.

A rough outline for my article is:

- (Intro) Airport policies and security after 9/11

- Airport Security & the 4th Amendment

- Body Scanning Privacy

- Camera Surveillance in Airports

- Sniffer Dogs (Odor is an identifier)

- Biometric Systems (E-gates, Global Entry, automated border control)

=== Information Privacy  === Content: The article gives us an overview of what informational privacy is, the types of information types, and the ways privacy matters are addressed through laws and authorities. Everything in the article is relevant to the article topic. One thing that did distract me was the Safe Harbor section because the section had so much information it, it would work best if it was minimized so the reader can fully understand its importance to privacy. Also it seems to be in connection with Legality so the placement of the section can work best if it followed the Legality section. Smart Phones I believe can be added to the information types as that has become the main source that carries a person's personal information.

Tone: The article is presented in a neutral matter. There are no claims that appear heavily biased toward a political position instead it provides a general overview of each subtopic it addresses. There are a few subtopics that do not contain enough information as others. In section 2.7 about political privacy there is a very brief description about this privacy type in comparison to section 2.3 on internet privacy.

Sources: For the most part the citations links do work. I did find that the citations from the European commission are no longer working as the information that the article was citing has been moved in the website. After going through the references, I found that most sources came from either books or scholarly articles. There are a couple references, however, that are website articles that can potentially contain bias because they do not always have to be neutral in comparison to scholarly articles.

Talk Page: The main theme in these conversations is on improving the article by adding correct citations, removing the bias that was previously in the article, and adding in supplementary information in some of the sections. The article is rated C-class on the quality scale and as high-importance on the importance scale. The article is also part of three WikiProjects: Computing, Internet, and Mass Surveillance. The way Wikipedia discusses these topics is by providing a general overview of the information types but it differs in that it connects these topics with key background information on laws and policies

===  Surveillance aircraft  === Content: This article focuses on defining what a surveillance aircraft is and the history of the different types of aircraft used during time of war in the United States. Throughout the article there are various citations stating "citation needed" which was distracting and had me as the reader question if this article is a reliable source. The information is out of date as the references listed go back to 2009 and the latest one is 2014. That leaves a five year gap of missing information that could deal with the improvement of these aircrafts or laws surrounding surveillance aircraft.

Tone: The tone of the article is neutral. The history section is very underrepresented as it briefly talks about the types of surveillance aircrafts used but does not go into explaining their features and the pros and cons for each aircraft. Some sections only have one to a few sentences describing a whole time period.

Sources: The citations links all are website articles some from the news and others linking to the description of the aircraft. One particular article from the LA times stood out as highly bias with the headline, "Drone aircraft will be used to nab illegal immigrants on California-Mexico border." There is no attempt in the article that notes that this source can be biased.

Talk: The talk page has mainly conversations on improving the article through terminology, deletion of certain content, and adding supplemental information. The article is rated as Start-Class and is currently not part of any WikiProjects. However, it is listed as an interest in the WikiProjects about Military History, Espionage, and Aviation.

Airport privacy
Airport privacy involves the right of personal privacy for passengers when it comes to screening procedures, surveillance, and personal data being stored at airports. This concept intertwines airport security measures and privacy specifically the advancement of security measures following the 9/11 attacks in the United States and other global terrorist attacks. Several terrorist attacks, such as 9/11, have led airports all over the world to look to the advancement of new technology such as body and baggage screening, detection dogs, facial recognition, and the use of biometrics in electronic passports. Amidst the introduction of new technology and security measures in airports and the growing rates of travelers there has been a rise of risk and concern in privacy.

History of airport policies
Before the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the only security measure in place in U.S. airports were metal detectors. A metal detectors ability to only detect metal weapons made it inefficient in detecting nonmetals such as liquids, sharp objects, or explosives. After the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the United States, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) increased security measures all over the airports. Policies were made to prohibit the carry on of liquids, sharp objects, and explosives. Airlines instructed passengers to arrive 2 hours before their flight is to depart if traveling domestically and 3 hours if traveling internationally. After passing through screening, passengers were selected at random for additional screening including bag checks. After an incident, that involved a passenger carrying a bomb in their shoe, security screeners asked passengers to remove their shoes when passing through checkpoints. In February of 2002, the TSA officially took over the responsibility for airport security. In 2009, airport security measures were once again shaken when a passenger, now commonly known as the "underwear bomber," smuggled a bomb into the airport facility in his underwear. Before these terrorist attacks, only 5 percent of bags were screened. Following these attacks, all bags were subject to screening.

In 2008, the European Union considered the use of full body scanners to overcome the challenges with metal detectors in not being able to detect nonmetal weapons and also the challenge of pat-downs. The European commission came to the consensus that passengers must have an option to decline body scanning.

Body screening
Screening Technology has advanced to detect any harmful materials under a traveler's clothes and also detect any harmful materials that may have been consumed internally. Full body scanners or Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) were introduced to U.S. Airports in 2006. Two types of body screening that are currently being used at all airports internationally are backscatters and millimeter wave scanners. Backscatters use a high-speed yet thin intensity x-ray beam to portray the digital image of an individual's body. Millimeter wave scanners uses the millimeter waves to create a 3-D image based on the energy reflected from the individual's body.

In June 2010, the TSA's commissioners report regulated that screening must follow a framework to ensure fundamental rights and health provisions for travelers. Members of particular groups including disabled people, transgendered people, older people, children, women and religious groups have experienced additional negative effects on privacy. In April 15 of 2010, a letter from the TSA stated that the TSA had in their possession about 2000 body scanned photos from devices that they claimed were unable to store data/images.

Alternative security measures are offered to travelers who wish to opt out of body screening. The United States and European Union allow a traveler the option of refusing screening procedures and instead go through a pat-down. However, if a traveler refuses the pat-down then they are refused entry to the secure area of the airport terminal.

Baggage screening
Baggage screening of all bags entering the airport wasn't implemented until after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Carry on bags typically go through two stages of inspection: an X-ray screening of he contents in the bag and a manual inspection by a Security Screening Operator (SSO). A manual inspection is only necessary if a SSO has doubts of the contents in the bags. After security checkpoints, carry on bags can be inspected further through random searches and checked in bags are screened for explosives or other dangerous items before being sent out to a passenger's respective flight.

Sniffer dogs/detections dogs
Detection dogs are utilized all over airports specifically in baggage claim sections. The role of a detection dog is to prevent any substance such as illegal drugs or explosives to further enter the facility or leave it. The accuracy and physical capacity of these dogs has raised concerns and has led to the creation of sniffer devices. Similarly to dogs, this device also know as "chemical sniffers" or "electronic noses" is used to detect any trace of drugs and explosives. Odor, although not commonly thought to be connected with an individual’s privacy, is unique to every individual. Every individual has a characteristic odor known as the “body odor signature” which can be used to identify gender, sexual orientation, health, diet, and so on. It can reveal emotions like fear and happiness and is viewed as a biological footprint.

In the Lopez Ostra v Spain, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that odor does in fact have an effect on privacy and human rights.

Camera surveillance and the future of facial recognition
Surveillance cameras are placed strategically around airports to ensure the safety of everyone. An increase in camera surveillance then calls for an increase amount of personally stored data. A human machine interface is controlled by a person who operates the surveillance system to assess a situation. The operator is in control of the cameras and determines where the person will appear on the next camera. Facial recognition is an emerging technology measure for airport security. Facial recognition has made its way to camera surveillance. A study done at The Palm Beach airport showed that the false alarm rate of face recognition surveillance was fairly low and had a success rate of almost 50% when it came to matching. The use of facial recognition during the Super Bowl brought up concerns in connection to the Fourth Amendment.

Facial profiling
In 2003, in an effort to improve the detection of terrorist threat, the TSA introduced the Screening Passengers by Observation Technique (SPOT). SPOT is a behavioral recognition system that looks at the way people conduct themselves through facial expressions and body movement. TSA Behavior Detection Officers (TBO) are stationed at airport security checkpoints and keep an eye out for behavior from travelers that may give off any suspicion of malice. SPOT has been highly critiqued for the times it has been used to misidentify a threat causing intrusive searches on travelers based on a hunch that a TSA official has.

Biometric systems
Biometrics are human characteristics that are unique to every individual and are usually not changing such as fingerprints, speech, face, etc. Electronic gates, also known as e-gates, have become very common in airports because of their ability to verify travelers based on their biometric information. There are two types of privacy that are a concern when discussing e-gates, one is general privacy and the other is system-specific privacy which focuses on the beliefs regarding to the capability of the system to protect privacy. Europe is the first to have introduced e-gates in their airport facilities and the future of airport technology for the United States points toward e-gates.

In the United States, there are two registered travel programs: the Register Travel (RT) system and the Global Entry (GE) System. These programs are designed to expedite immigration procedures for trusted travelers and are primarily based on fingerprint recognition.

The Fourth Amendment
The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures while also ensuring the protection of an individual's privacy. The relationship between airport security measures such as screening and pat-downs has sparked a controversial debate when it comes to the Fourth Amendment. As security measures heightened following the 9/11 attacks, many travelers have voiced their opinion that these new measures are in violation of the Fourth Amendment. However, airport officials have responded by claiming that screening measures and pat-downs are not seen to violate the Fourth Amendment because these procedures can be made into a condition when a traveler is purchasing airline tickets. In addition, the Fourth Amendment does not create an absolute right to privacy against all intrusive searches instead the constitutionality of a search is highly based on reasonableness and security.

The Privacy Act of 1974 protects personal information when it is being processed by the federal government.

The following cases provide examples to court rulings on intrusive searches:

United States v. Montoya de Hernandez
United States v. Montoya de Hernandez (1985) ruled that an individual can be subject to an intrusive search, such as a body cavity, if authorities see it fit for the safety of others or themselves. This ruling coincides with the fact that a person is subject to additional screening at any point throughout the airport if airport authorities feel it is necessary or suspect the risk of safety.

Illinois v. Caballes and United States v. Place
The US Supreme Court ruled in Illinois v. Caballes (2005) and United States v. Place (1983) that warrantless searches such as dog searches can be acted upon an individual without the need of suspicion. In airports, detection dogs conduct searches on passengers throughout the facility by having them sniff on a passenger's baggage at baggage claim sections.

United States v. Guapi
United States v. Guapi (1998) ruled that the police did not effectively communicate that the search was optional to the suspect. This type of issue occurs regularly in airports when a traveler is unaware of their privacy rights when it comes to unreasonable searches or alternative search methods available.

Texas and the Tenth Amendment
Following the implementation of enhanced pat downs in airports, the state of Texas challenged federal power by passing two bills into state legislature that would criminalize TSA officials from conducting these pat downs on travelers. Texas argued that the Tenth Amendment, which reserves all remaining power, not delegated to the federal government, to the state and people, allowed them to ensure police powers to protect citizens within their state. However in 2011, U.S Department of Justice Murphy used the Supremacy Clause to argue that airport security is part of federal domain and cannot be controlled or changed by states laws.