Invisible Eyes And Involuntary Consent: A Jurisprudential Inquiry Into Biometric Surveillance At Airports
- IJLLR Journal
- Aug 4
- 2 min read
Akshara Ann Cheriyan, St Joseph’s College of Law, Bangalore, India
ABSTRACT
Biometric systems like facial recognition, fingerprints, and iris scanning have all been introduced in more and more airports as a measure for enhancing security, expediting passenger processing, and embarking on the war against global terrorism and crime. Such biometric techniques are hailed for their efficiency returns and threat detection; however, at the same time, they will have sensational legal and ethical repercussions on the right to privacy. This article critically analyzes biometric monitoring at airports from a legal-analytical view, which considers the regulatory limits, jurisprudential ingenuity, and compliance mechanisms. It sets the deployment of biometric systems against constitutional and human rights frameworks, mapping out such provisions as those found in the European Convention on Human Rights, the U.S. Fourth Amendment, and possible future regulatory instruments such as the EU AI Act. The forthcoming critique of the possible accountability mechanisms available such as independent audits and data protection authorities juxtaposed with judicial redress is expected to identify gaps in the areas of transparency, consent, and proportionality. The present article is divided into three parts: (1) The "Invisible Gaze" Paradox: Visibility and Transparency in Airport Biometric Systems, (2) The "Consent Illusion" Conundrum: Choice, Coercion, and Asymmetry at Security Checkpoints, and (3) The "Algorithmic Accountability" Dilemma: Oversight, Bias, and Redress in Airport Biometrics. Each chapter opens a vibrant, interdisciplinary discussion involving legal doctrine, technology studies, and privacy theory. The conclusion is that even if biometric surveillance is part of a legit state interest, there must be some clear legal confines and strict controls to ensure respect for privacy rights. Such a regime would provide statutory protections, impact assessments, binding transparency reports, algorithmic audits, and redress for the individual. The last point affirmed by this study is that airports need to have a reasonable balancing act between security and personal rights; hence the need for equity, accountability, and oversight in biometric governance.
