ONTD Political

New scanners break child porn laws

11:02 pm - 01/04/2010


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."

Source

Maybe the plug will get pulled on this mess after all...
illogical_me 5th-Jan-2010 04:10 am (UTC)
ot but is that man wearing a thong

do not want that image

on topic: Damn.
layweed 5th-Jan-2010 04:12 am (UTC)
It looks like the belt is causing the scanner to show a darker band around his waist, so probably no.
c_yo_yus 5th-Jan-2010 04:11 am (UTC)
So then they'll just start strapping bombs onto children. There's no good way out of this.
worldmage 5th-Jan-2010 04:13 am (UTC)
For any security measure you put up, they WILL eventually find a way around it. That's an unavoidable fact. There never was a good way out of it and there never will be.

People need to learn to deal with reasonable levels of uncertainty.
worldmage 5th-Jan-2010 04:12 am (UTC)
Maybe the plug will get pulled on this mess after all...

God I hope so. This shit makes my blood boil.
mindrtist 5th-Jan-2010 06:38 am (UTC)
Me too. From all aspects.
eroholic 5th-Jan-2010 04:15 am (UTC)
If they're considering that child pornography shouldn't they consider the whole deal sexual harassment?
monkey_kong 5th-Jan-2010 05:49 am (UTC)
THIS SO MUCH. If the pictures are so indecent and you're afraid that they're going to be put on the internet for porn, um, doesn't that kind of make it wrong?
jmintmilano 5th-Jan-2010 04:23 am (UTC)
the only way I could see this taking off would be if it really was a time saver over the other methods, and if people were given a choice.

If someone said to you, hey you can go through this line and get scanned and it will take 20 minutes, or go stand over there, which will take an 1 and 1/2 hours....I think a lot of people would be tempted to use it.
baked_goldfish 5th-Jan-2010 04:35 am (UTC)
From what I can tell, they'll still make you take off your shoes and toss your pocket debris into a plastic bucket.
valencianbelle 5th-Jan-2010 04:23 am (UTC)
Oh god.. I'd dread going through that thing... *shudders*
leads_to_sex 5th-Jan-2010 06:19 pm (UTC)
Why? The one person viewing it would be in a separate room. No one around you would be able to see the image.
24_24_1_1526 5th-Jan-2010 04:33 am (UTC)
so if the kids aren't getting scanned, do they default to racial profiling if under the age of 18? i mean, shouldnt we fear all of the little brown muslim boys, not just the grown ups.
baked_goldfish 5th-Jan-2010 04:34 am (UTC)
Even leaving aside the myriad civil liberties issues, there's no guarantee these machines (or any machines) will make us safer on their own. I doubt a backscatter machine would have stopped that guy going the wrong way in Newark, for instance. That was a personnel issue - not enough personnel, and/or possibly not trained enough. And the underwear bomber was an information-sharing failure. There was quite a lot that could have stopped him from boarding that flight well before he even got to check in.

And anyway, what's to stop someone from carrying a crapload of explosives into the airport on Christmas Eve, and then exploding it in the line leading up to the checkpoints? No scanner would be able to stop that, unless you put them at the gates to the airport itself.
jmintmilano 5th-Jan-2010 04:41 am (UTC)
Truth.

After reading some article about the israeli (I think it was them) security, I really dont get why we dont move towards a system more like them. There is a checkpoint to get into an airport by car, which would really help here in the US. Someone could easily pull up with a bomb in a car and explode it in front of the airport. But what is to stop them from not doing that anywhere else, either?

Ugh so complicated.
bitter_sweet05 5th-Jan-2010 04:35 am (UTC)
God, just the idea of these things make me twitch. Here's hoping they do pull the plug, because seriously, what do we go to after this, when they start getting around it? =/
layweed 5th-Jan-2010 04:37 am (UTC)
Strip searches and naked airplane flights.
after_the_rain 5th-Jan-2010 05:08 am (UTC)
Well.

I guess I'm never going to fly anywhere again.

This scares me more than terrorism does.
ayarane 5th-Jan-2010 05:23 am (UTC)
Here's how I see this security theater nonsense ending:

Take your sentiment, multiply it to... exponential proportions. People stop flying, airline industry crashes again (and they turn up their money-grabbing practices, like charging for restroom usage or the ability to use the tray).

It's a giant clusterfwegh waiting to happen. Freaking TSA. :(

Sadly, terrorists won long ago. I don't think they even care if they actually blow up a plane anymore, so as long as they can send everyone else running around like headless chickens. It's all FOR THE LULZ! to them.

Train travel looks oh so appealing... it's just too bad that our national rail system is colossal FAIL.
ayarane 5th-Jan-2010 05:16 am (UTC)
Two things about these scanners:

1) Radiation, haaaaaai.
I know the question has been played down and is often handwaved as "oh no, it's no worse than from a TV," but really... if it can see through you, it's much stronger than that.
At the very least I seriously hope that pregnant women are being exempted from this, because holy crap you don't want to touch the radiation topic with a 20-foot pole.

2) There's a lot of talk about instant deletion of images.
This implies that the software that operates these machines had a save feature coded into it.
How about... they just strip out or otherwise disable saving in the first place? >_>;

Of course, ideally we wouldn't have to bother with these freaking scanners to begin with, but if we're going to play into the whole security theater thing... just sayin'. :P
worldmage 5th-Jan-2010 05:51 am (UTC)
I know the question has been played down and is often handwaved as "oh no, it's no worse than from a TV," but really... if it can see through you, it's much stronger than that.

Not really. It can see through CLOTHES, which are fairly porous. It can't see through anything as dense as skin, much less muscle or bone, so it can't be strong enough to cause significant amounts of cell damage over the course of a minute or two. If it could, I'd be slightly worried about that aspect. Since it can't, there's really nothing to worry about there.

There's enough else wrong with this that worrying about very faint levels of radiation is really unnecessary.
misatojaganshi 5th-Jan-2010 05:17 am (UTC)
will these scanners actually help when intelligence agencies continue to ignore data? and what will they do if some other nutjob gets through these scanners? ugh
asukanagakuse 5th-Jan-2010 06:05 am (UTC)
Am I the only one not bothered by these scanners at all? Someone from a separate room will be the one to see them who will see 2740239840932 naked bodies a day. Individuals will be forgotten a few seconds after they walk away. I'm sorry, maybe I am ignorant, but I don't understand why it's making so many people squeamish.
layweed 5th-Jan-2010 06:07 am (UTC)
Because it's an invasion of privacy? Even if it's only for a second and the people operating the machines are seeing 27e27 naked bodies a day, it's different from when they're seeing your 1 body.
layweed 5th-Jan-2010 06:06 am (UTC)
I for one will be wearing my lead lined bodysuit when I pass through these scanners. Aha. Aha.
sunshinedan 5th-Jan-2010 06:32 am (UTC)
All I could think was "Does it show internal items?"
Up the bum with the bombs?
And if it does.
Headline: "White Suburban Terrorist Mom packs Phallic shaped explosives- Make that a vibrator."
yes_justice 5th-Jan-2010 06:35 am (UTC)
Everyone should just fly naked.
impeachtea 5th-Jan-2010 07:26 am (UTC)
lol this was going to be my exact comment
pennieblack 5th-Jan-2010 01:22 pm (UTC)
Why does everyone (including the terrorists, apparently) focus on planes? Why not subways, or boats? They have a helluva lot less security.

Yes, planes go overseas and are more bang for your buck, but all it takes is one large explosion before people start clamoring for more safety on other transport.

But you /can't/ impose those kinds of restrictions on a train. The system wouldn't be able to take it. What would we do then?

And furthermore, for planes? If we can come up with the technology, someone else can find a way to circumvent it. All these new methods are doing is giving people a false sense of security and chipping away at our privacy.
castalianspring 5th-Jan-2010 03:33 pm (UTC)
That's a good point. I would think what happened with the one plane that crashed to the ground instead of the intended target b/c passengers fought back would be a powerful deterrent.
lilyginny27 5th-Jan-2010 04:36 pm (UTC)
Stuff like this makes me want to stay home. With the beauty that is Google Earth, it's not like I need to travel to see anything anyway. :-/
keeni84 5th-Jan-2010 05:55 pm (UTC)
I am surprised how many people don't care. I wonder how often these 'don't care' people fly? (not attacking, just generally curious)

I fly all the time. Remember when they used to do it in a separate room? Now they don't even do that anymore. Everyone can see you being patted down and even though it's a light touch, it's still uncomfortable and a bit humiliating.

Can you imagine going through a full-body scan? For what, exactly? What is the level of training these individuals have, by the way?

This makes me never want to fly again, but I have no choice. I have to travel this way. It's not like I can take a boat where I need to go. And the fact that no one even cares about what we have to say bothers me even more.

No one needs to see my naked body, even for an instant. Unfortunately, I don't even have a choice.
leads_to_sex 5th-Jan-2010 06:18 pm (UTC)
Where are you going where you need to fly, yet you can't take a boat to where you need to go?
This page was loaded May 25th 2013, 7:13 pm GMT.