Snigger

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.

So amusing, eh? Petards and hoist, there are always complications to these grand plans, aren\’t there?

9 comments on “Snigger

  1. The job of airport security must be a boring one. Can you imagine the fun that will be had, giggling over some of the images that they will be viewing.

    I personally don’t care too much, but this is extremely insulting for those that do.

  2. I’m no fan of security theatre, but Dowty is talking utter crap here. Naked pictures of children aren’t inherently illegal (and non-naked pictures can be) – the test is ‘indecent’, which is based on context.

    If a sweaty deviant has 10,000 pictures of kids in bikinis in his “sexy pics” folder, that can be (and has been) found illegal, despite the legality of swimwear catalogues. But if you have a picture of your kid in a paddling pool without anything on, that isn’t illegal at all [*].

    Since the context discussed here is one of people creating these images for a good reason that has nothing to do with sexual intent, and the images are merely naked rather than sexualised, the process is completely legal and doesn’t create any problems at all.

    The tightly controlled exceptions Dowty is referring to are different – they allow law enforcement officers to possess photographs that *are* indecent for the purposes of tracking down paedophiles. That doesn’t apply in this case.

    [*] a very small number of people in this situation have got grief from idiot photo developers and/or cops who don’t know the law, but none have ever been convicted.

  3. doesn’t create any problems at all. – should contain a “legal” before problems. While, like Serf, I don’t really care, I’m sure there’ll be some incidents where angry dads lamp the security staff for being fackin’ nonces.

  4. How long after they’re introduced will pictures of naked minors be posted on the Internet? I give it a week maximum.

  5. Pingback: The Great Simpleton » Body scanners

  6. The former head of ElAL security was on Fox News – they expected him to tell them how the US should be profiling Muslims, doing full body scans and so on. Unfortunately for them he disagreed with everything they suggested. He told them that the full body scans would serve only to infuriate every Muslim man whose wife was being ogled at, and would simply escalate hostilities without having any practical effect on terrorist attempts.

  7. The machines have a modesty patch which pixilates the groin and breasts so that the operator cannot see those areas unless he removes the modesty cloaking if they suspect anything unusual, (no lines about suspicious bulges). This stuff was dealt with at the engineering stage.

    The real point is that if they can’t wear it ‘on’ their body they will wear it ‘in’ their body, as in the recent attempt to assassinate a member of the royal family in saudi arabia. There is always a way around security because security has an economic cost and beating it is about ideas, which are free.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.