|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 01/05/2010 : 04:19:38
|
How are they going to get around this?
The rapid introduction of full body scanners at British airports threatens to breach child protection laws which ban the creation of indecent images of children, the Guardian has learned.
Privacy campaigners claim the images created by the machines are so graphic they amount to "virtual strip-searching" and have called for safeguards to protect the privacy of passengers involved.
Ministers now face having to exempt under 18s from the scans or face the delays of introducing new legislation to ensure airport security staff do not commit offences under child pornography laws.
They also face demands from civil liberties groups for safeguards to ensure that images from the £80,000 scanners, including those of celebrities, do not end up on the internet. The Department for Transport confirmed that the "child porn" problem was among the "legal and operational issues" now under discussion in Whitehall after Gordon Brown's announcement on Sunday that he wanted to see their "gradual" introduction at British airports.
|
Tough call, eh? Either potential terrorists slipping past or kiddie porn. I wonder how we'll handle it when the question comes up in the US.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2010 : 04:43:18 [Permalink]
|
They should simply prevent images/footage from being stored. I don't see how indecent images of children could be distributed if the security staff have only a live feed to work with. As for the staff themselves seeing it, I would compare this to a doctor looking at a patient's naked body, it's necessary for the job at hand. If you don't want to submit to it, don't fly, simple as that. Not to mention the image barely shows more than a silhouette of the person being scanned.
As for celebrities, how can you tell who someone is from an image like that anyway? |
 |
 |
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2010 : 05:41:13 [Permalink]
|
I'm for exempting anyone who doesn't want to be screened. Though they would also be exempted from flying. Meantime, make the misuse of such images punishable sufficiently to discourage them becoming porno material. And for security reasons, those images probably need to be kept for later evaluation. (They'd need to be looked at carefully again in case someone slipped through and blew up a plane.) But a DVD archive can be kept under lock and key.
Frankly, from what I've seen from released test images, this stuff's not erotic. People have to decide whether they prefer their modesty to their lives. I think that's an easy decision. The next decision is whether they prefer to walk past airport security people completely naked, or be screened via these scanners.
Personally, I would not want to board any flight that might have someone with a high explosive taped to their bodies. And I get it and accept it: Okay, that means someone's got to see right down to my skin. That's a bitch, but a planeload of people getting blown up is a much bigger one. |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Something to think about....
