Full Body Scans

[Hercuflea]

New scanners break child porn laws The London Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...hild-porn-laws 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. A 12-month trial at Manchester airport of scanners which reveal naked images of passengers including their genitalia and breast enlargements, only went ahead last month after under-18s were exempted. The decision followed a warning from Terri Dowty, of Action for Rights of Children, that the scanners could breach the Protection of Children Act 1978, under which it is illegal to create an indecent image or a "pseudo-image" of a child. Dowty told the Guardian she raised concerns with the Metropolitan police five years ago over plans to use similar scanners in an anti-knife campaign, and when the Department for Transport began a similar trial in 2006 on the Heathrow Express rail service from Paddington station. "They do not have the legal power to use full body scanners in this way," said Dowty, adding there was an exemption in the 1978 law to cover the "prevention and detection of crime" but the purpose had to be more specific than the "trawling exercise" now being considered. A Manchester airport spokesman said their trial had started in December, but only with passengers over 18 until the legal situation with children was clarified. So far 500 people have taken part on a voluntary basis with positive feedback from nearly all those involved. Passengers also pass through a metal detector before they can board their plane. Airport officials say the scanner image is only seen by a single security officer in a remote location before it is deleted. A Department for Transport spokesman said: "We understand the concerns expressed about privacy in relation to the deployment of body scanners. It is vital staff are properly trained and we are developing a code of practice to ensure these concerns are properly taken into account. Existing safeguards also mean those operating scanners are separated from the device, so unable to see the person to whom the image relates, and these anonymous images are deleted immediately." But Shami Chakrabarti, of Liberty, had concerns over the "instant" introduction of scanners: "Where are the government assurances that electronic strip-searching is to be used in a lawful and proportionate and sensitive manner based on rational criteria rather than racial or religious bias?" she said. Her concerns were echoed by Simon Davies of Privacy International who said he was sceptical of the privacy safeguards being used in the United States. Although the American system insists on the deletion of the images, he believed scans of celebrities or of people with unusual or freakish body profiles would prove an "irresistible pull" for some employees. The disclosures came as Downing Street insisted British intelligence information that the Detroit plane suspect tried to contact radical Islamists while a student in London was passed on to the US. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's name was included in a dossier of people believed to have made attempts to deal with extremists, but he was not singled out as a particular risk, Brown's spokesman said. President Barack Obama has criticised US intelligence agencies for failing to piece together information about the 23-year-old that should have stopped him boarding the flight. Brown's spokesman said "There was security information about this individual's activities and that was shared with the US authorities." It has now become acceptable for anonymous government security agents to view your children completely naked. Gordon Brown wants full-body scanners in every airport in the UK. This is outrageous. Innocent men, women, and children are to be put through this cattle-herding system of total control and humiliation if they want to get on an airplane. If Britons had any sense of freedom left in their country, it has just been lost.

[Oneironaut Zero]

As uneasy as I am about admitting full-body scanners into mainstream institutions like airports, I think making "child pornography" claims is going a bit overboard.

[Hercuflea]

All you have to do is go to google images and type in "full body scanner", and you can see what the images look like as they are seen by the guards. I would post an example of a picture from a full body scanner here but i'm afraid i'd be punished for doing so. When the same thing is done to a child, it is child pornography, plain and simple.

[Universal Mind]

That looks more horror movie than porno.

[Hercuflea]

^ not the same

[Universal Mind]

^ not the same If that's what they look like, I don't think it's going to last. The airline companies will lobby their asses off when people stop flying.

[Oneironaut Zero]

All you have to do is go to google images and type in "full body scanner", and you can see what the images look like as they are seen by the guards. I would post an example of a picture from a full body scanner here but i'm afraid i'd be punished for doing so. When the same thing is done to a child, it is child pornography, plain and simple. I saw the "full body scanner" months ago, before it became public knowledge. It doesn't change anything. Pornography denotes a sexual connotation. A scanner that happens to show the obscure impression of a naked person (while not welcome, in my books) is not pornography. It's stuff like this that take credibility away from legitimate claims of indecency.

[ClouD]

I would refuse such a scan.

[Hercuflea]

I saw the "full body scanner" months ago, before it became public knowledge. It doesn't change anything. Pornography denotes a sexual connotation. A scanner that happens to show the obscure impression of a naked person (while not welcome, in my books) is not pornography. It's stuff like this that take credibility away from legitimate claims of indecency. I guess you didn't read the article. Although they are not making minors pass through the scanners yet, Gordon Brown plans to slowly implement them into the system as well. And regardless of any one persons opinion about "what" exactly pornography is, it is against British law to put children through scanners which would reveal their fully nude bodies including genitalia to a stranger. A 12-month trial at Manchester airport of scanners which reveal naked images of passengers including their genitalia and breast enlargements, only went ahead last month after under-18s were exempted. The decision followed a warning from Terri Dowty, of Action for Rights of Children, that the scanners could breach the Protection of Children Act 1978, under which it is illegal to create an indecent image or a "pseudo-image" of a child. I would refuse such a scan. Then you won't be getting on a plane. America is bringing in full body scanners as well. http://www.americanconsumernews.com/...body-scan.html They may be optional for the time being, but rest assured, sooner or later they will become mandatory for anyone to get on a plane.

[Scatterbrain]

I honestly don't see what the problem is. It looks more like a doll than a person. And it could be exactly like taking pictures of me naked, if it decreased the chance of an armed person boarding the plane, even by just 1%, It would be worth it.

[hellohihello]

I has a video

[Oneironaut Zero]

Ah. No, I actually hadn't read the full article. Didn't think about "child pornography" being up for interpretation. I see what you mean though, though.

[Caprisun]

It has now become acceptable for anonymous government security agents to view your children completely naked. Gordon Brown wants full-body scanners in every airport in the UK. This is outrageous. Innocent men, women, and children are to be put through this cattle-herding system of total control and humiliation if they want to get on an airplane. If Britons had any sense of freedom left in their country, it has just been lost. I just spent the entire last semester studying airport security and I learned all about these scanners. It is an anonymous security guard sitting in a separate room behind a closed door. They look at the image, as long as there is nothing unusual, the person is allowed to pass and the picture is IMMEDIATELY DESTROYED. There isn't a database of naked pictures sitting at the airport. Since there is no need to store these images, it is safe to delete them after you pass. I think it is outrageous that you oppose this and I also think it is outrageous that you consider this "child porn." The process is very impersonal. You should be heralding this technology as the life-saving device that it is. How dare you risk the lives of all those people by protesting this device on account of your "privacy." This upsets me very much because this technology could do potentially great things for airport security, but people will inevitably protest for such petty concerns. They'll say it goes against their "principles" or their rights. How many lives are worth your principles? There are certain sacrifices we should make for the safety of the people, this is one of them. If it upsets you that much or you have some kind of phobia, don't fly. One of my professors has a name for people like this, he calls them C.A.V.E. people- Citizens Against Virtually Everything. They are a major pain in the ass for the Federal Aviation Administration, which is only trying to make your life safer. Would you sue a doctor who took an x-ray of your pelvic region? No, because he is trying to help you with an ailment. Think of the security guard as the doctor and the terrorist as your ailment.

[Hercuflea]

I honestly don't see what the problem is. It looks more like a doll than a person. And it could be exactly like taking pictures of me naked, if it decreased the chance of an armed person boarding the plane, even by just 1%, It would be worth it. "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. " Benjamin Franklin But the obvious lesson of September 11th is that government cannot protect us. Even with trillions of tax dollars spent on “defense,” hijacked planes flew unchallenged over our skies and attacked national symbols of business and government. Yet now we’re told to put even more faith into the same bureaucracies that failed us so miserably in the past? Self-reliance and self-defense are American virtues; trembling reliance on the illusion of government-provided security is not. ... The biggest problem with these new law enforcement powers is that they bear little relationship to fighting terrorism. Surveillance powers are greatly expanded, while checks and balances on government are greatly reduced. Most of the provisions have been sought after by domestic law enforcement agencies for years, not to fight terrorism, but rather to increase their police power over the American people. The federal government has made no showing that it failed to detect or prevent the September 11th attacks because of the civil liberties that will be compromised by this new legislation. America was founded by men who understood that the threat of domestic tyranny is as great as any threat from abroad. If we want to be worthy of their legacy, we must resist the rush toward ever-increasing state control of our society. Otherwise, our own government will become a greater threat to our freedoms than any foreign terrorist From: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul181.html

[Hercuflea]

I just spent the entire last semester studying airport security and I learned all about these scanners. It is an anonymous security guard sitting in a separate room behind a closed door. They look at the image, as long as there is nothing unusual, the person is allowed to pass and the picture is IMMEDIATELY DESTROYED. There isn't a database of naked pictures sitting at the airport. Since there is no need to store these images, it is safe to delete them after you pass. I think it is outrageous that you oppose this and I also think it is outrageous that you consider this "child porn." The process is very impersonal. You should be heralding this technology as the life-saving device that it is. How dare you risk all of those peoples lives by protesting this device on account of your "privacy." Would you sue a doctor who took an x-ray of your pelvic region? No, because he is trying to help you with an ailment. Think of the security guard as the doctor and the terrorist as your ailment. I didn't coin the term "child porn" with regard to this issue. I got it right out of the London Guardian. If you have a problem with the way that is was phrased, you should call them up. I would rather live in a free society where my life is at risk than to be herded as a head of cattle by my government and to have to serve their every whim in order to "earn" my "privilege" to be "secure".

[Black_Eagle]

Has anybody else actually been through one of these things besides me? I had mine when I was flying back to Texas. I don't really mind it myself. Lulz, since I was 16 when I went through this scan, do I count as a victim of molestation? I think the real issue is not the "nakedness", but the fact that these scanners give people a small dosage of radiation (at least I think they do).

[Scatterbrain]

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. " Benjamin Franklin Ironically this applies to you, not me. You're not willing to give up some comfort for an increase of the most essential liberty of all, being alive.

[grasshoppa]

As uneasy as I am about admitting full-body scanners into mainstream institutions like airports, I think making "child pornography" claims is going a bit overboard. Agreeded. Just don't hire pedophiles, pretty easy to see. Just gotta see that greasy fucking pedo smile. They all have it, kind of like how all down syndrom people have that same face. EDIT: Agreeded...lol. I was gonna edit it, but fuck it, it stays!

[Hercuflea]

Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. === Every single politician who pushes laws such as the Patriot Act or any act which would enact warrantless searches and seizures with their filthy hands through congress, every President that signs these laws, every court that upholds them, and every officer of the peace that enforces them are committing TREASON. All of those people have sworn on their lives to protect and defend the constitution of the United States, and as soon as they do so they turn around and start destroying it. We are entering a new era, where there is an ever present global "security" grid. We can see it with the requirements for Americans to have passports if they are only going across the border to Mexico or Canada. We can see it in these body scanners that are being implemented globally all in the name of fighting a failed terrorism plot supposedly orchestrated by men who live in caves in the desert. We can see it in the REAL ID Act, which thankfully most States have rejected. We can see it in the gradual lockdowns of airports and countries as it is becoming harder and harder for free citizens to freely travel. We are sacrificing the liberty and happiness of every single individual on the planet (except for the mega-elite such as the Rockefellers, Rosthchilds, Morgans, other bigtime international banking families, oil industrialists, Maurice Strong, etc etc etc) for the temporary security of a few. It's time for anyone who still believes in freedom, individuality, honesty, family, and sovereignty to rise up and say no to every single aberration or grievance that is put out by the government of their own country.

[Caprisun]

I didn't coin the term "child porn" with regard to this issue. I got it right out of the London Guardian. If you have a problem with the way that is was phrased, you should call them up. I would rather live in a free society where my life is at risk than to be herded as a head of cattle by my government and to have to serve their every whim in order to "earn" my "privilege" to be "secure". Yes! We are now 90% more likely to be killed during our aerial transit, but at least we have our dignity! RIGHTEOUS! "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. " Benjamin Franklin The world of Ben Franklin was much different than the world we live in. Ben was a sensible man, he would have certainly supported the security of our airports. P.S. That newspaper should truely be ashamed of themselves.

[Marvo]

If anything this will help change the current concept of indecency.

[Invader]

This is actually a fantastic way to motivate an entire nation into adopting healthier lifestyles.

[Xox]

This is actually a fantastic way to motivate an entire nation into adopting healthier lifestyles. That's precisely the first thing I thought. I, personally, would have no problem with it. However, I can certainly see why others would, especially really religious people from certain religions.. But still.. And it could be exactly like taking pictures of me naked, if it decreased the chance of an armed person boarding the plane, even by just 1%, It would be worth it. This.

[DeeryTheDeer]

Yes! We are now 90% more likely to be killed during our aerial transit, but at least we have our dignity! RIGHTEOUS! I've never read a more ignorant, sensationalist statement unsupported by any facts whatsoever on the internet. It is statistically proven to be far more dangerous to ride in a car than to ride in a plane. In fact, the most dangerous thing about riding a plane, even with the absolute worst case scenarios of how often terrorist attacks could supposedly happen, is the drive to the airport. Yet we don't feel emotionally overwhelmed by the concept of dying in a car crash, because it happens every day and we're around cars, riding or driving cars all the time. The worst part of this illogical, overly irrational fear of terrorist attacks on planes is that more people will opt for driving instead of flying. Right after 9/11, in which almost 3,000 people died, the majority of Americans traveled by car and airports were almost completely empty. In an amazing book called The Science of Fear, it states calculations that even if terrorists were hijacking and crashing one passenger jet a week in the United States, a person who took one flight a month for a year would only have a 1 in 350,000 chance of being killed in a hijacking, against the 1 in 6,000 chance every year of being killed in a car crash. In the year following September 11th, when everyone was driving, there were 1,595 car fatalities, which is 6 times more deaths than anyone who died on flights on 9/11, and 319 times more deaths than the anthrax attacks in 2001. But congratulations, Caprisun. You're an emotionally manipulated, thoughtless sheep controlled by political pundits and the government, like a pawn on a chessboard. They're playing you like a piano beautifully. This whole full body scanner, in my opinion, is at the least a waste of money that could be spent on much more effective ways to prevent terrorism and national security instability, a direct affront of constitutional rights to privacy, and a gross overreaction and tool of control. Our childish paranoia has just gone WAYYY too far this time. In unguided fear, we lose human rights left and right.

[Invader]

That's precisely the first thing I thought. Birds of a feather, you know. Our childish paranoia has just gone WAYYY too far this time. That actually happened when we started pouring millions of dollars into the Mexico border fence. Anyways, plenty of the people that might come onto a plane armed aren't even criminals, or at least lack the intention to harm anyone purposely. Some people carry guns, others knives. What would happen if you armed everyone on the airplane? Would a terrorist feel uncomfortable when it came time to make a move?