Havacılık güvenliği ve insan hakları bağlamında hak-güvenlik paradoksu

Abstract

Devletler, havacılık sektöründe yaşanan terör ve diğer yasadışı eylemler sonucunda birtakım güvenlikleştirme stratejileri izlemek zorunda kalmışlardır. Havacılık güvenliği çalışmaları altında şekillenen bu stratejiler, başta devletlerin ulusal güvenliği olmak üzere yolcuların can ve mal güvenliğini sağlamaya yönelik birtakım mekanizmaların gelişmesine katkı sağlamıştır. Bu mekanizmalar içerisinde ortaya çıkan ve profilleme olarak adlandırılan yapay zekâ destekli sistemler, yolcuların mahremiyet haklarını ihlal edecek ya da ikinci plana itecek birtakım uygulamalar ortaya çıkarmıştır. Profilleme sistemleri bu tür güvenlik uygulamalarına örnek olarak verilebilir. Bu sistemler yolcuların mahremiyet haklarını ihlal ederek izinsiz şekilde onların kişisel bilgilerine erişmekte ve bunları kullanılarak birtakım puanlamalar ve sınıflandırmalar yapmaktadır. İnsan hakları savunucuları bu uygulamalar sonucunda harekete geçmiş ve böylece hak-güvenlik paradoksu olarak tanımlanabilecek bir tartışma başlamıştır. Bu tartışma özelinde şekillenen çalışmada, uluslararası anlaşmalar, ulusal güvenlik, insan hakları, güvenlik prosedürleri ve profilleme konuları hak-güvenlik paradoksu bağlamında analiz edilmiştir. Böylece profilleme süreçlerinde hak ihlallerinin ne düzeyde yaşandığı tespit edilmeye çalışılmış ve öneride bulunulmuştur.

Keywords

• Güvenlik
• Havacılık Güvenliği
• İnsan Hakları
• Profilleme
• Uluslararası Anlaşmalar

Rights-security paradox in the context of aviation security and human rights

Abstract

States had to pursuit several securitization strategies as a result of terrorism and other illegal acts in the aviation sector. These strategies, which were shaped under the aviation security studies, led to the development of a number of mechanisms to ensure the safety of life and property of passengers, particularly the national security of states. The artificial intelligence-supported systems that emerged within these mechanisms and called profiling have revealed a number of applications that will violate the privacy rights of the passengers or push them to the second plan. Profiling systems are examples of such security applications. These systems violate the privacy rights of the passengers and access their personal information without permission and make some scoring and classification by using them. As a result of these practices, human rights defenders took action and thus a discussion that could be defined as the rights-security paradox started. In the study shaped specifically for this discussion, the issues of international agreements, national security, human rights, security procedures and profiling are analysed in the context of the rights-security paradox. Thus, it was tried to determine the level of violations of rights in the profiling processes and suggestion was presented.

Keywords

• Keywords: Security
• Aviation Security
• Human Rights
• Profiling
• International Agreements

References

1. Price, J. C. ve Forrest, J. S. Practical Aviation Security Predicting and Preventing Future Threats, Elsevier, Oxford, 2016.
2. Salter, M. B. 2008. Imagining Numbers: Risk, Quantification, and Aviation Security, Security Dialogue, 39(2-3), 243-266.
3. Enerstvedt, O. M. Aviation Security, Privacy, Data Protection and Other Human Rights: Technologies and Legal Principles, Springer, Langhus, 2017.
4. Cordova, A. 2022. Technologies For Primary Screening İn Aviation Security, Journal of Transportation Security, 1-19.
5. Szyliowicz, J. S. 2004. Aviation Security: Promise or Reality?, Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 27, 47-63
6. Tamasi, G. ve Demichel, M. 2011. Risk Assessment Techniques For Civil Aviation Security, Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 96(8), 892-899.
7. ICAO, Security Culture, 2022. https://www.icao.int/Security/Security-Culture/Pages/de fault.aspx, 12 Temmuz 2022.
8. Milbredt, O., Popa, A., Doenitz, F. C. ve Hellmann, M. 2022. Aviation Security Automation: The Current Level Of Security Automation and Its Impact, Journal of Airport Management 16(2), 184–208.

9. ICAO. Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme Continuous Monitoring Manual, 2011,https://www.icao.int/sam/documents/2011/cma/9735_usoap_cma_manual_3rd_edition.pdf, 23Temmuz2022
10. Annex 17, Annex 17. Safeguarding International Civil Aviation Against Acts of Unlawful Interference, 2017, https://www.iacm.gov.mz/app/uploads/2018/12/ an_17_Security _10ed_2017_rev.15_01.04.17.pdf, 24 Temmuz 2022
11. Abeyratne, R. L. Aviation Security Legal And Regulatory Aspects, Routledge, Lodon 2018
12. ICAO, 2001. https://www.icao.int/Meetings/AMC/MA/Assembly%2033rd%20Session/ plugin-resolutions_a33.pdf, Erişim: 04 Ağustos 2022
13. ICAO, 2022. https://www.icao.int/security/usap/pages/default.aspx, 04 Ağustos 2022
14. Kaunert, C., Callander, B. ve Léonard, S. 2021. The collective securitization of aviation in the European Union through association with terrorism, Global Affairs, 7(5), 669-686.
15. Žabokrtský, M. 2011. EU Air Transport Policy: Implications on Airlines and Airports. Současná Evropa, 1, 161-180.
16. Barreto, O. 2002. Safety Oversight: Federal Aviation Administration, International Civil Aviation Organization, and Central American Aviation Safety Agency, The Journal of Air Law and Commerce, 67(3), 651-583.
17. Salter, M. B. 2004. Passports, Mobility, and Security: How smart can the border be?. International Studies Perspectives, 5(1), 71-91.
18. SHGM, 2022, http://mevzuat.shgm.gov.tr/index.php/imm-kanun/, 05 Ağustos 2022.
19. Elias, B. Changes in Airport Passenger Screening Technologies and Procedures: Frequently Asked Questions, Congressional Research Service, 2011 https://sgp.fas.org/crs/home sec/ R41502.pdf. 07 Ağustos 2022.
20. Abeyratne, R. Strategic Issues In Air Transport, Springer, New York, 2012.
21. Koreckı, Z., ve Tomáš H. 2022. Effectiveness of Preventive Security Measures And Criminal Acts Against Civil Aviation Transport Problems, International Scientific Journal 17(2), 107-114.
22. Cowell A., Filkins, D. British Authorities Say Plot To Blow Up Airliners Was Foiled. 2006. https://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/10/world/europe/11terrorcnd.html, 07 Ağustos 2022
23. Pantserev, K. A. ve Golubev, K. A. Artificial Intelligence and the International Information and Psychological Security, in Jahankhani, H., Jamal, A. ve Lawson, S. Cybersecurity, Privacy and Freedom Protection in the Connected World, Springer, London, 2021, 1-9.
24. Mezher, T., Asem, M. A. M. ve Maarouf, B. B.1998. Embedding critics in decision-making environments to reduce human errors, Knowledge-Based Systems, 11, 229−237.
25. Jupe, L. M., ve David A. K. 2019. Airport Artificial Intelligence Can Detect Deception: Or Am I Lying?. Security Journal 33(4), 622-635.
26. Donadio, F., Frejaville, J., Larnier, S. ve Vetault, S. Artificial Intelligence and Collaborative Robot to Improve Airport Operations, in Auer M. E. ve Zutin, D. G., Online Engineering & Internet of Things, Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems 22, Springer International Publishing AG Cham, Switzerland, 2018, 973−986.
27. Rothwell, J., Bandar, Z., O'Shea, J. ve McLean D. 2006. Silent Talker: A New Computer-Based System for the Analysis of Facial Cues to Deception, Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 757–777.
28. Majeske, K. D., ve Thomas W. L. 2012. Optimizing Airline Passenger Prescreening Systems With Bayesian Decision Models, Computers & Operations Research, 39(8), 1827-1836.
29. Nie, X., Batta, R., Drury, C. G. ve Lin, L. 2009 . Passenger Grouping with Risk Levels in an Airport Security System, European Journal of Operational Research 194(2), 574–584.
30. Wells A. T. ve Young, S. B. Airport Planning and Management, McGraw-Hill Companies Inc, New York, 2004.
31. Kite, L. A. 2004. Red flagging civil liberties and due process rights of airline passengers: will a redesigned CAPPS II system meet the constitutional challenge, Wash. & Lee L. Rev., 61, 1385-1436.
32. Philpott, D. Understanding the Department of Homeland Security, Bernan Press, London, 2015.
33. Armengol, R., Johnson, D. G. ve Regan, P. M. Secure Flight Hidden Terms of Accountability, in Deborah, G. J., Priscilla M. R. Transparency and Surveillance as Sociotechnical Accountability, Routledge, London, 2014, 40-59.
34. Elias, B. Risk-Based Approaches to Airline Passenger Screening, in Hellen, E. S. Secure Flight Program: Airline Passenger Screening Efforts, Nova Science Publishers, New York, 2014, 1-31.
35. Koyuncu, Ç. A. İnsan Hakları, in Kardaş, Ş. ve Balcı, A., Uluslararası İlişkilere Giriş, 2014, Küre yayınları, İstanbul.
36. Kılınç, D. 2012. Anayasal Bir Hak Olarak Kişisel Verilerin Korunması, AÜHFD, 61(3), 1089-1169.
37. Turhan, A. 2013. İnsan hakkı kuşakları arasındaki tamamlayıcılık ilişkisi, İnönü Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 4(2), 357-378.
38. Domaradzki, S., Khvostova, M. ve Pupovac, D. 2019. Karel Vasak’s Generations of Rights and the Contemporary Human Rights Discourse, Human Rights Review, 20(10), 423-443.
39. Boyar, O. ve Kama I. S. 2019. Dördüncü Kuşak Haklar ve Bilişim Teknolojilerinin Doğuşunda Mahremiyet Kavramına Karşılaştırmalı Bir Bakış, Marmara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Hukuk Araştırmaları Dergisi 25(2), 602-623.
40. Westin A. 1967. Privacy and Freedom, IG Publishing, New York.
41. Abeyratne, R. 2010. Aviation Security Law, Springer, London.
42. Ravich, T. M. 2005. Airline Passenger Profıling Systems After 9/11: Personal Privacy Versus National Security, Journal of the Transportation Research Forum, 44(2).
43. Baker, E. 2002. Flying While Arab—Racial Profiling and Air Travel Security. Journal of Air Law and Commerce, 67, 1375-1405.
44. Banks, R. R. 2004. Racial Profiling and Antiterrorism Efforts. Cornell Law Review, 89, 1201-1217.
45. Chandrasekhar, C. A. 2003. Flying while Brown: Federal Civil Rights Remedies to Post- 9/11 Airline Racial Profiling of South Asians, Asian Law Journal, 10, 215-252.
46. Juvan, J., Prezelj, I. ve Kopač, E. 2020. Public Dilemmas About Security Measures in The Field of Civil Aviation, Security Journal, 34, 410–428.