Full body scanners break child porn laws....

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

In an interesting development privacy campaigners, notably Privacy International, are pointing out that full body scanners (which the Government assure us will save more lives) are a step too far.

This could prove a crucial stage in the ongoing debate on (individual) privacy versus (personal, interpersonal, national, and commercial) security.

It doesn't show a naked image of the person it's scanning.

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by Nidge

It doesn't show a naked image of the person it's scanning.

Depends how you define "image"

[Sirius]

They can scan my body all they want if it helps to stop some nutter blowing up the plan i am flying on.

[rogerdraig]

dont know where to be on this one

a: i think body scanners are a waste of time and unlikely to help at all in preventing terrorists

b: the pictures only become an issue if they are being taken or used in a unlawful manner the "Criminal Justice and Immigration Act" made it an offence to have any image ( ex stream image i think it actually says ) "solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal" the problem there would only occur if the operator ( person viewing ) intended to use it that way

then there is the "Coroners and Justice Bill" which makes any image ( technicaly any image that they think is a child even if they are not is covered this way too ) infact having any part of the child even say a foot in the picture where the use of the picture is for sexual gratification makes it illegal ( even drawn pictures could fall under this law)

BUT for the life of me i cant see how any of it applies if they vet the operators unless they are oing to do thought probes on them to see if they are thinking illegal thoughts

---------- Post added at 19:28 ---------- Previous post was at 19:16 ----------

Originally Posted by Nidge

It doesn't show a naked image of the person it's scanning.

they can, they can with software give a near perfect BW image

[danielf]

I believe there's software available for analysing the images as well, which means that it's not necessary to have a human operator viewing the images. I don't know how reliable this software is though.

[Dude111]

Originally Posted by Stuart C

The thing is, the human body is actually rather good at dealing with small doses of radiation. It does so every day (sunlight, artificial light, heat, electricity, radiowaves are some examples).

Yea ya got a good point mate

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Nidge

It doesn't show a naked image of the person it's scanning.

You sould complain directly to the manufacturer - I doubt they'd be reading CF.

[Peter_]

Its quite simple really, you get to the airport and they say please stand in front of this scanner, you know if you comply you fly and if you don't, you won't.

The will always be someone who will refuse and then they will not get to fly and their refusal will cause them to forfeit the cost of the flight and any holiday they have booked, as no insurance company would payout in those circumstances.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Moldova

Its quite simple really, you get to the airport and they say please stand in front of this scanner, you know if you comply you fly and if you don't, you won't.

The will always be someone who will refuse and then they will not get to fly and their refusal will cause them to forfeit the cost of the flight and any holiday they have booked, as no insurance company would payout in those circumstances.

No actually, as the original article points out it's not that simple. Certain individuals are currently exempted from being subject to the scans.

[Peter_]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

No actually, as the original article points out it's not that simple. Certain individuals are currently exempted from being subject to the scans.

The vast majority will have to comply or they will not fly.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Moldova

The vast majority will have to comply or they will not fly.

Again, certain individuals are currently exempted from being subject to the scans. That was part of my reason for starting the thread in the first place.

The vast majority of those who fly are not trying to blow up planes - therefore their compliance, in this context, is largely irrelevant.

I would tend to be more suspicious of that particular type of passenger whom you have identified as those who might buy a ticket and book a holiday, knowing they will be scanned, who intend turning up at the airport only to refuse to be scanned.

Yes, those are exactly the types we need to be on the lookout for.

[rogerdraig]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Again, certain individuals are currently exempted from being subject to the scans. That was part of my reason for starting the thread in the first place.

The vast majority of those who fly are not trying to blow up planes - therefore their compliance, in this context, is largely irrelevant.

I would tend to be more suspicious of that particular type of passenger whom you have identified as those who might buy a ticket and book a holiday, knowing they will be scanned, who intend turning up at the airport only to refuse to be scanned.

Yes, those are exactly the types we need to be on the lookout for.

why it wont do what it says on the packet anyhow many ways to impregnate clothing with the chemicals needed for the type of bomb they are supposedly looking for that would evade this type of scanner so the real bomber would most likely volunteer to go through so as to get through with not to much hassle with simple methods available on plane to recover and use them ( they still give you water and alcohol )

[punky]

I saw this and was quite impressed. Need to give him a job!

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/ar...-little-bother

Admin edit (Chris): Now linked to original article

I've changed your link so it points to the original news source, rather than the forum where it was copied and pasted in its entirety.

Very interesting find though. I wonder what the chances are of this country ever implementing something so simple yet effective.

[rogerdraig]

Originally Posted by punky

I saw this and was quite impressed. Need to give him a job!

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/ar...-little-bother

Admin edit (Chris): Now linked to original article

wouldn't work here

for their small airport with mostly jews travelling its fairly easy for them to use the "if their nervous we check them" system but in a large national airport for one thing we couldn't afford to pay all the people we would need to try to do that or the training time