New scanners break child porn laws

[Bruno]

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

[squarepusher]

so perv's soon will be flooding to a new job area i see.

perfect example of contradictions in the system getting mixed up with themselves, or the 2 headed beast stumbling over itself

[erowe1]

If they break child porn laws, then doesn't that mean that all the adults who get scanned are appearing in adult porn. Adult porn may not be in the same legal class as kiddie porn, but still it does seem like there must be some legal recourse adult passengers have against having to be in porn as a prerequisite of flying.

[lester1/2jr]

I'm willing to ahrge my normal nude modeling rate and have it deducted from my plane ticket price. I see it as doing my part for the struggle against radical islamic islam

[Bruno]

Scanner video (adults)

ht tp://shock.military.com/Shock/videos.do?displayContent=208570&page=1

[lester1/2jr]

nice

[MelissaWV]

I wish there were a nice, safe way to market underwear that is impervious to scanning in only some areas. I'd like a pair of boyshorts with "Fuck You, Big Brother" scrawled across the butt. I'm not sure it'd be legible, but I can dream. Maybe "F" and "U" on the bra, and "TSA" on the panties. I don't know that it'd be good to wear lead undies, and I wouldn't chance the scanning. I really hate the idea of undergoing extra scans altogether.

I don't appear in porn, sorry. I'm sure many others have documentable religious objections, and far more have modesty objections. I think this is one instance where the Government "promising to blur parts" (then what's to stop a bomber from creating a bomb that resides purely in the blurry areas?) or to "not save images" is going to be enough. Some random TSA person seeing your privates, even for an instant, on a screen is NOT OKAY. Why the Government doesn't get this is beyond me. It doesn't make us safer (not that this would be an excuse, but if you're going to pull this Orwellian crap at least have proof it helps matters), it exposes us to yet more scans (aren't we supposed to limit x-rays, ultrasounds, exposure to microwaves, and any number of other things... especially when pregnant?), and adds more cost (hmm we already have fees all over the price of a plane ticket... I wonder who's going to foot the bill for these scanners?).

No thanks.

[lester1/2jr]

it's a perfect example of how we are sacrafising our dignity for our empire

[ScoutsHonor]

it's a perfect example of how we are sacrafising our dignity for our empire

IMO, anyone who has dignity has given up on flying. Michael Savage has spoken to this - he AIN'T flying anymore.

Huh.:mad:

[Matt Collins]

Don't you know, the government doesn't have to follow the law.

[Elwar]

So...I had an idea about a website. Something like tsa-scannerpics.com with various pics of nude scanned pics of babes.

The point of the site would be to point out the obvious reason why we shouldn't have these scanners...

But I imagine that the mere existence of such a site would have the Fedgov up in arms, going after the site quicker than The Obama Forum (http://www.theobamaforum.com).

[SelfTaught]

Scanner video (adults)

ht tp://shock.military.com/Shock/videos.do?displayContent=208570&page=1

Oh no, they can actually see your penis, and they can get close up shots. OH NOOOOO........

Well, I better go ahead and get that enlargement surgery.

[MelissaWV]

IMO, anyone who has dignity has given up on flying. Michael Savage has spoken to this - he AIN'T flying anymore.

Huh.:mad:

Actually, right /now/ I don't have a problem flying. This has a great deal to do with how I fly, and I have to fly for business, so meh. Even when I fly for personal reasons, I have very little to "flag" me other than medical items, which I generally don't have issues with.

Right /now/, though, there are a lot of people who have to undergo undue stress and indignity just to get on a plane and get from point A to point B. Plane tickets are a fairly big purchase, and the hassle is telling on a lot of people.

I will not go through the new scanners, and I don't take kindly to the notion of being groped. If you really want to search me that thoroughly, you're not going to like the headache I can be, and you're never going to get your hands on me. I don't mind if I can't get on the plane. You can put your hands on my things, but not on me, and you certainly can't see what I'm wearing under the clothing I chose to put on. If I'd wanted to show you my panties, I wouldn't have worn any pants.

There's a line they're about to cross here, and a lot of people aren't going to like this one. I think this is a massive failure in the making, hence why every news story has to quote two or three people saying they're willing to do it "for safety."

[brandon]

Usually naked pictures of children are not considered child porn if the child is not acting in a sexual manner. See for example the photographs by David Hamilton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hamilton_%28photographer%29), whose art is fully legal in the UK.

[MelissaWV]

usually naked pictures of children are not considered child porn if the child is not acting in a sexual manner. See for example the photographs by David Hamilton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hamilton_%28photographer%29), whose art is fully legal in the UK.


You need to revise your "usually." Child porn laws have gotten silly in some areas. If you are a parent, and take a picture of your child in the bath, you might have problems. Even if that child is just showing a little bit of "crack" and they're a toddler. If your kid is in a situation like the Coppertone girl:
http://slog.thestranger.com/files/2007/05/Coppertone_girl.jpg
and you think it's funny enough to snap a picture, you are going to be a sicko for life and potentially have to register.

No, really.

People have tried to get around the "acting in a sexual manner" thing on both sides of the fence. You could argue that just lying down on a bed spread-eagled, but asleep and naked, isn't "acting." You could also argue that if the kid is in the bath (as in the example of a parent snapping a shot of their kid in the bath) the situation is "provocative" and hence porn, even if the nudity isn't explicit.

The Government is tripping over its own idiotic regulations. Again, I don't think this dog will hunt.

[ScoutsHonor]

Actually, right /now/ I don't have a problem flying. This has a great deal to do with how I fly, and I have to fly for business, so meh. Even when I fly for personal reasons, I have very little to "flag" me other than medical items, which I generally don't have issues with.

Right /now/, though, there are a lot of people who have to undergo undue stress and indignity just to get on a plane and get from point A to point B. Plane tickets are a fairly big purchase, and the hassle is telling on a lot of people.

I will not go through the new scanners, and I don't take kindly to the notion of being groped. If you really want to search me that thoroughly, you're not going to like the headache I can be, and you're never going to get your hands on me. I don't mind if I can't get on the plane. You can put your hands on my things, but not on me, and you certainly can't see what I'm wearing under the clothing I chose to put on. If I'd wanted to show you my panties, I wouldn't have worn any pants.

There's a line they're about to cross here, and a lot of people aren't going to like this one. I think this is a massive failure in the making, hence why every news story has to quote two or three people saying they're willing to do it "for safety."

And so, if they put these things in, how will you deal with the 'need to fly for business' issue?

That IS a problem - but I've got a pretty good idea of what I would do.

[MelissaWV]

And so, if they put these things in, how will you deal with the 'need to fly for business' issue?

That IS a problem - but I've got a pretty good idea of what I would do.

Either they will let me telecommute, or they can deal with the far greater expense of training someone else from scratch. If they're willing to ditch me over the issue, they'll have an awfully rude awakening. I'm an "at will" employee, which means I don't have to give two seconds' notice, let alone two weeks' notice. During that time period that they'd have to train someone else, they'd have no one to fly around and put out fires (figurative ones) for them.

Telecommuting, right now, isn't the best option in the world. There are inventory concerns and procedural issues that are best overseen in person. I will probably be at a totally different location by the time these scanners go into effect, and working remotely anyhow, but if there is a problem we will just have to come up with a more efficient way of teleconferencing and obtaining the inventory oversight over the internet.

I tend to go with the flow on this stuff ;) It might even lead to a far more efficient means of doing what we've been doing all along.

[jmdrake]

What's going to happen when some "smart" terrorist decides to pack plastics in a fat suit? Or what about those mastectomy bras?

Side note, last time I visited Seattle* you had to walk through one of those "forced air bomb sniffing" machines before going up to the top of the space needle. (Apparently bombs set off at the bottom of the space needle don't do any damage. Only bombs at the top are a problem). While I'm against all of these intrusions, why is this not being discussed as an alternative to the scanners? There's no radiation. No pics of your private parts. And it would work against plastics in fat suits and mastectomy bras.

Regards,

John M. Drake

*(Actually I'm not sure if it was the Seattle space needle or the Vancouver one as we went to both on the same vacation.)

[dannno]

(Apparently bombs set off at the bottom of the space needle don't do any damage. Only bombs at the top are a problem).

Ya we learned that one the hard way on 9/11 ;)

[NerveShocker]

I'm willing to charge my normal nude modeling rate and have it deducted from my plane ticket price. I see it as doing my part for the struggle against radical islamic islam

Lol, I'm with ya on that. Seriously though this is crazy to subject people to this. I think way too many lines are being crossed all in the name of "security". I wonder how secure we will be when people are rioting in the streets.

[Elwar]

What's going to happen when some "smart" terrorist decides to pack plastics in a fat suit? Or what about those mastectomy bras?


The scanners also detect implants...

[Dreamofunity]

Nice clear images of penises, fun day at work.

[ScoutsHonor]

Either they will let me telecommute, or they can deal with the far greater expense of training someone else from scratch. If they're willing to ditch me over the issue, they'll have an awfully rude awakening. I'm an "at will" employee, which means I don't have to give two seconds' notice, let alone two weeks' notice. During that time period that they'd have to train someone else, they'd have no one to fly around and put out fires (figurative ones) for them.

Telecommuting, right now, isn't the best option in the world. There are inventory concerns and procedural issues that are best overseen in person. I will probably be at a totally different location by the time these scanners go into effect, and working remotely anyhow, but if there is a problem we will just have to come up with a more efficient way of teleconferencing and obtaining the inventory oversight over the internet.

I tend to go with the flow on this stuff ;) It might even lead to a far more efficient means of doing what we've been doing all along.
At last, someone who actually does have dignity. :) You mean you're not going to *whine* about how the Big Bad gov't is forcing us to put up with this stuff?? That's a relief! :)

Seriously though, I would do much the same thing--tell my boss that I'm unwilling to fly, and offer to go by train, or any other reasonable alternative. (Is Amtrak still in business? I don't know..) And yes, I'd be willing to risk losing the job -one's self-respect is more important than a job.

I like that thought and think it's likely: that more efficient means might very well evolve. That would be in line with the America of not so long ago, the America of innovation, independence, and self-respect.

[Brian4Liberty]

Usually naked pictures of children are not considered child porn if the child is not acting in a sexual manner. See for example the photographs by David Hamilton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hamilton_%28photographer%29), whose art is fully legal in the UK.

http://reason.com/blog/2009/05/04/grandma-arrested-for-child-por


Back in 2005, a WalMart worker in Pennsylvania reported 59-year-old Donna Dull to local authorities after Dull dropped off some film that included shots of her three-year-old granddaughter in and just out of the bath. Dull was arrested—roughly, she says—and charged with producing and distributing child pornography.

[Brian4Liberty]

What's going to happen when some "smart" terrorist decides to pack plastics in a fat suit? Or what about those mastectomy bras?

Side note, last time I visited Seattle* you had to walk through one of those "forced air bomb sniffing" machines before going up to the top of the space needle. (Apparently bombs set off at the bottom of the space needle don't do any damage. Only bombs at the top are a problem). While I'm against all of these intrusions, why is this not being discussed as an alternative to the scanners? There's no radiation. No pics of your private parts. And it would work against plastics in fat suits and mastectomy bras.


Totally agree. It's another case of the government focusing (and spending money) on the wrong things. The naked xray machines are a bad idea for many reasons. Like you suggested, the money would be far better spent on the forced air bomb sniffers.

As for their "naked scanners", how much radiation exposure is there? If it sees through clothes, won't it go right through a thin layer of explosives sewn into pants or undergarments? How about women's maxi-pads? What about adult diapers? There are so many things wrong with those machines, above and beyond health concerns, privacy concerns, high costs, and false sense of security. What happens when the screeners fall asleep or don't pay attention? This system is dependent on a human sitting there and staying alert, it's not an automatic alarm like a forced air sniffer.

[Brian4Liberty]

The scanners also detect implants...

Good point. Implants could be filled with explosives. ;)

[jmdrake]

The scanners also detect implants...

But can it tell the difference between implants and semtex? Judging by the images they've been showing I'd say the answer is a resounding no. Ultimately the machine relies on a human to evaluate the image and make a judgment call on what the "anomaly" is. As long as you have an explosive material that's of a similar density to silicon the system fails. That shouldn't be too hard to fabricate. Besides a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. This attack happened outside the U.S.

[malkusm]

You gotta love government laws that break government laws.

[revolutionisnow]

Hope the prosecutors can make a case against them.

[Matt Collins]

Nice clear images of penises, fun day at work.UGH :rolleyes: