Full body scanners break child porn laws....

[rogerdraig]

i still dont see that as the big problem with it ( and i am normally all for privacy lol ) the problem is it wont make travelling any safer any how

the scanner companies are most likely loving the privacy side show as they haven't had to bother trying to cover up the glaring problems with their equipment when you read the info on them including that it most likely wouldn't have stopped either of those who tried to blow up planes

see http://www.alan.com/2010/01/03/body-...as-day-bomber/

http://www.nydailynews.com/money/200..._answered.html

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TRAVEL/05/18...ty.body.scans/

---------- Post added at 19:11 ---------- Previous post was at 19:02 ----------

Originally Posted by Derek S

Surely getting frisked by a security guard is just the same and probably more infringing of privacy

yep it may be more intrusive but it stands a better chance of working than the scanners

and in fact the scanners could make it less safe as if you pass it your very unlikely to face further checks

so if you have a plastic syringe and powder in your underpants you will now most likely be more likely to get on the plane than before where a pat down may very well brought about some suspicion about what you were carrying down there

[Welshchris]

I cant see how they can break child porn laws, from my understanding the images seen cannot be saved anyway so theres no chance of images being passed on.

[Raistlin]

The law that may be being broken is the one that makes it illegal to create the images.

That's what makes it possible for the police to successfully prosecute people who have only downloaded such images from the Internet, but not necessarily traded in them.

[Welshchris]

but isnt porn creating sexually expicit images for a purpose where this isnt for that purpose.

[Raistlin]

I don't believe the law makes that distinction as clearly as you appear to be applying it.

It simply states that it is an offence to make 'indecent' images of a child, but then fails to define what 'indecent' is. This means that the definition of 'indecent' in each case is down to the judgement of the judge/jury in the case if it is prosecuted.

Case law established around this also doesn't allow for the purpose for which the image was made to be taken into account when establishing 'decency' - this means that the fact that these images were made purely for the purposes of security doesn't mean that they are not indecent.

Originally Posted by punky

Is there a right to privacy when travelling on private property?

On a high street or at a corden outside of a protest target is one thing, but noone's forced to travel by air.

The EHRC seems to think there is.

I have no problem with theprivacy aspect of this because as has been said no one is forced to go flying and if they choose too it's usually with an understanding that you may be checked thoroughly anyway. Where i do have a problem is the UK spending money on what might be completely useless and inadequate technology more so at a time when so many other areas of spending are about to get walloped with a big cuts axe.

But this is labour and you know their unofficial saying "a soundbite on the news is worth a few million of the publics money wasted".

I'd take issue with the idea that 'nobody is forced to go flying' Rizz - plenty of people have to go flying regularly as part of their job. I once had responsibilities that required me to fly to Dublin twice a month for 6-8 months. There was no way I could have done the job otherwise - and it is not a simple matter to just find another job.

[Derek]

Ooops. They seem to pick up things made of metal just like traditional scanners but mess up the whole exploding pants detection.

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archive..._tv_on_th.html

[rogerdraig]

Originally Posted by Derek S

Ooops. They seem to pick up things made of metal just like traditional scanners but mess up the whole exploding pants detection.

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archive..._tv_on_th.html

which is what was saying i really dont see the privacy issue on this one ( lol strange for me ) its just that all the stuff i read on it just shows it doesn't do what it says on the packet

and is more likely imho to make things less safe as you can guarantee once you pass the scanner test most will not be stopped and just rushed through to the plane while they investigate the 2 year old on the list

http://www.fly.co.uk/news/mix-up-lea...t-1982193.html

[rogerdraig]

another one says how they most likey wont help

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/16/20100130...s-6315470.html

[Derek]

Just to make things worse the staff can't be trusted not to take the printouts and force movie stars to sign them.

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/bollywoo...re-claims.html

A BAA spokesperson has denied Shah Rukh Khan's claims that he signed naked body scanner images of himself for female airport staff.

Hmmm, of course he couldn't be making things up for publicity and the staff just popped in an ink-jet when waiting for anyone remotely famous or good looking to go through the scanner.

[rogerdraig]

Originally Posted by Derek S

Just to make things worse the staff can't be trusted not to take the printouts and force movie stars to sign them.

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/bollywoo...re-claims.html



Hmmm, of course he couldn't be making things up for publicity and the staff just popped in an ink-jet when waiting for anyone remotely famous or good looking to go through the scanner.

all you would need is camera or camera phone to get a copy straight off of the screen then access to a printer

[Pia]

Didn't take long did it!

An airport security guard who made lewd comments about a female colleague's breasts after taking a 'naked' body scan of her is facing the sack.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz0j5tpq3TJ

[Osem]

Nope! If they're such a good idea I'd like to see Brown and Mandelson go through them..