Airport scanners violate child porn laws

[Cainkane1]

Full body scans reveal so much that its illegal to scan a child in the UK and the USA.

So what do we do now? Do we wait until some terrorist plants a bomb on some poor child and then change the law after several people die?

 

[Dats]

I think it's an acceptable risk seeing as though they still have other scanning technology that can be used that isn't against the customs of those two nations.

 

[Darat]

Full body scans reveal so much that its illegal to scan a child in the UK and the USA.

So what do we do now? Do we wait until some terrorist plants a bomb on some poor child and then change the law after several people die?

Is this some journalist that is saying this - or is it some legal bod?

 

[Cainkane1]

http://www.bing.com/search?q=Scanners+child+porn+laws&form=msnhpm

Ok heres the addy.

 

[Mister Earl]

It isn't a violation of pornography laws. Nudity is not the same as pornography. Laws in some places may differ, but as far as I know, there is that legal distinction in most places.

 

[Darat]

http://www.bing.com/search?q=Scanners+child+porn+laws&form=msnhpm

Ok heres the addy.

So it's just what some "privacy campaigners" have said being reported and re-reported as fact by quite a few lazy journalist.

 

[Fengirl]

I was just about to start a thread on this having read this Guardian piece yesterday:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jan/04/new-scanners-child-porn-laws

According to the piece, the scanners reveal naked images of passengers, including genitalia and breast implants. The images shown in the piece are quite graphic. In addition to the concerns over whether they may breach the law relating to the making of indecent images of children, there are concerns that images of celebrities (or anyone else) could end up on the internet. Given that UK government agencies don’t have a particularly impressive record in protecting our personal data, I do have my doubts about how this would be prevented.

I was also wondering how these scanners would be regarded by certain ethnic and religious groups for whom the viewing of almost any part of a woman's body is taboo.

Personally, I find the idea of some security bod sitting in a room viewing images of me in the buff quite disturbing and I would need to be convinced that the invasion of privacy was proportionate to the security risk these scanners are supposedly designed to address. Apparently, I'm not alone - results of the Guardian poll are here:-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis...ll/2010/jan/04/terrorism-body-scanner-airport

 

[GreenLines]

According to news that I've been hearing there are scanners which create more of a silhouette then then graphic detail of the human body, and are designed more to reveal abnormalities under the clothing, ie, gun, molotov cocktail, and are not meant to show what a person looks like without clothing.

 

[Cainkane1]

I was just about to start a thread on this having read this Guardian piece yesterday:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jan/04/new-scanners-child-porn-laws

According to the piece, the scanners reveal naked images of passengers, including genitalia and breast implants. The images shown in the piece are quite graphic. In addition to the concerns over whether they may breach the law relating to the making of indecent images of children, there are concerns that images of celebrities (or anyone else) could end up on the internet. Given that UK government agencies don’t have a particularly impressive record in protecting our personal data, I do have my doubts about how this would be prevented.

I was also wondering how these scanners would be regarded by certain ethnic and religious groups for whom the viewing of almost any part of a woman's body is taboo.

Personally, I find the idea of some security bod sitting in a room viewing images of me in the buff quite disturbing and I would need to be convinced that the invasion of privacy was proportionate to the security risk these scanners are supposedly designed to address. Apparently, I'm not alone - results of the Guardian poll are here:-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis...ll/2010/jan/04/terrorism-body-scanner-airport

With all due respect fengirl how outraged would you feel if you were in a plane on the verge of crashing? In this day and time its either your dignity or your life.

 

[Fengirl]

According to news that I've been hearing there are scanners which create more of a silhouette then then graphic detail of the human body, and are designed more to reveal abnormalities under the clothing, ie, gun, molotov cocktail, and are not meant to show what a person looks like without clothing.

The images in the first piece I linked to are really quite graphic, whereas the images accompanying the poll in the second link are much less detailed and seem to be more like the type you have mentioned. I doubt there would be such controversy if the scanners they are planning to install were the simple silhouette type. It's the graphic detail that has led to these concerns.

 

[Darat]

With all due respect fengirl how outraged would you feel if you were in a plane on the verge of crashing? In this day and time its either your dignity or your life.

I'm calling that out as a false dichotomy. I've heard one "expert" (in quotes as I have no idea if he was or not the radio interviewer just identified him as such) that stated that this type of scanner would not have detected the latest attempt.

 

[Fengirl]

With all due respect fengirl how outraged would you feel if you were in a plane on the verge of crashing? In this day and time its either your dignity or your life.

I disagree. The question is, as ever, one of proportionality: Is the invasion of privacy proportionate to the security risk it's designed to address? Theoretically, they could insist that all airline passengers travel completely naked and submit to body cavity searches before boarding. I submit that to do so would drastically reduce the likelihood of terrorist attacks on airlines.

I wouldn't be flying anywhere ever again, though... would you?

 

[Fengirl]

... they could insist that all airline passengers travel completely naked and submit to body cavity searches before boarding.

Obviously, Branson would have to re-brand his airline if this came to pass...

 

[funk de fino]

I disagree. The question is, as ever, one of proportionality: Is the invasion of privacy proportionate to the security risk it's designed to address? Theoretically, they could insist that all airline passengers travel completely naked and submit to body cavity searches before boarding. I submit that to do so would drastically reduce the likelihood of terrorist attacks on airlines.

I wouldn't be flying anywhere ever again, though... would you?

I'd pay extra.

 

[commandlinegamer]

Tangential question: we've had terrorist bombings on the London Underground and the massive one on a Madrid train. Yet these have not prompted as severe a security response. Why aren't there more attacks on those type of (presumably easier) target? Is it simply that having an airliner fall out of the sky is more spectacular?

 

[Cuddles]

Given that UK government agencies don’t have a particularly impressive record in protecting our personal data, I do have my doubts about how this would be prevented.

They could just not save them. I'm pretty sure the x-ray scanners don't save all the pictures of bags that go through them, why would there be any need for these new scanners to do anything other than show someone a picture and then get rid of it? I can't see any reason a picture would need to be saved, let alone any reason for allowing any way of a picture being copied off the machine to somewhere else.

 

[Fengirl]

They could just not save them. I'm pretty sure the x-ray scanners don't save all the pictures of bags that go through them, why would there be any need for these new scanners to do anything other than show someone a picture and then get rid of it? I can't see any reason a picture would need to be saved, let alone any reason for allowing any way of a picture being copied off the machine to somewhere else.

Yes, and the reassurances being given are precisely that: that the images will be immediately deleted. However, the concern is that if the potential for the images to be saved and reproduced exists, (and it must, else why the references to "deletion"?) then there is a risk that whatever data security measures are put in place could be breached. Although that is true of all data security systems, in light of the government's recent crappy record in protecting our data, it's only right to raise the concerns rather than just accept bland reassurances that "You can trust us - we'll delete them, honest". The only reference I have seen is to a "code of conduct" for scanner usage, rather than anything more stringent. The quote from the Privacy International guy is that "...scans of celebrities or of people with unusual or freakish body profiles would prove an "irresistible pull" for some employees."

Given the speed with which the scanners are apparently being rushed in to use, I think it's only right that the questions over privacy are openly voiced and addressed, even if they may seem like scaremongering.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Pfff, do people think the guard is going to much notice the five-thousandth junk they saw that day?

My question is, why can't they have sexier models?

 

[Modified]

Yes, and the reassurances being given are precisely that: that the images will be immediately deleted. However, the concern is that if the potential for the images to be saved and reproduced exists, (and it must, else why the references to "deletion"?) then there is a risk that whatever data security measures are put in place could be breached. Although that is true of all data security systems, in light of the government's recent crappy record in protecting our data, it's only right to raise the concerns rather than just accept bland reassurances that "You can trust us - we'll delete them, honest". The only reference I have seen is to a "code of conduct" for scanner usage, rather than anything more stringent. The quote from the Privacy International guy is that "...scans of celebrities or of people with unusual or freakish body profiles would prove an "irresistible pull" for some employees."

The main problem would be the cash the employees could get for the celebrity scans, and the lawsuits that would result.

 

[richardm]

Yes, and the reassurances being given are precisely that: that the images will be immediately deleted. However, the concern is that if the potential for the images to be saved and reproduced exists, (and it must, else why the references to "deletion"?) then there is a risk that whatever data security measures are put in place could be breached... "...scans of celebrities or of people with unusual or freakish body profiles would prove an "irresistible pull" for some employees."

I don't think the pictures are ever stored at all. There's nothing to stop you taking a photograph of the screen, however. But the person viewing the scan pictures does not know who the scan is of, just that this is the next image to view. They're in a different room to the scanner,so can't see who's going through. And faces are automatically blurred.

People with freakish bodies are presumably out of luck, however.