The British Government says it’s working to allay fears that body scanners being introduced at airports will break laws against creating indecent images of children.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown said this week Heathrow and other British airports will introduce body scanners, as part of efforts by countries to tighten security following the failed US airliner bomb plot on Christmas Day.
Privacy campaigners told The Guardian that the images created by the machines were so graphic they amounted to “virtual strip searching” and have called for safeguards to protect the privacy of passengers involved.
Terri Dowty, of civil rights group Action On Rights For Children, said the scanners could breach child protection laws, which made it illegal to create an indecent image or a “pseudo-image” of a child.
“They do not have the legal power to use full body scanners in this way,” she told the newspaper in comments published today.
A Department for Transport spokesman said a code of practice was being drawn up for airport staff who will use the scanners.
“We understand the concerns expressed about privacy in relation to the deployment of body scanners,” he said.
“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,” he said.
Some countries, led by the United States, have announced additional security measures at airports since a Nigerian man was charged with trying to blow up a US-bound jet on December 25.
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, 23, reportedly confessed to being trained by an al-Qaeda bombmaker in Yemen for the suicide mission on the Northwest Airlines flight from Amsterdam to Detroit.
It was foiled when explosives allegedly sewn into the man’s underwear failed to detonate, and passengers jumped on him.
Source: The Herald Sun
By: PBY-5A - 28th March 2010 at 02:30
The rest of my post was about aviation, i was only using that quote in context to illustrate the point of the topic.
My apologies.
By: Grey Area - 27th March 2010 at 15:00
Moderator Message
When you consider this comes from the same world as the ban of “Ba Ba Black sheep” on the grounds of being racist, it’s not really suprising.
Ah, you must mean Made Up Stuff That Never Really Happened World.
Can we get back to talking about commercial aviation now, please?
Thanks
GA
By: PBY-5A - 27th March 2010 at 12:31
Absolutely ridiculous. A typical example of PC nonsense trying to overthrow a useful and necessary use
When you consider this comes from the same world as the ban of “Ba Ba Black sheep” on the grounds of being racist, it’s not really suprising.
I would of thought the safety of passengers would be a immovable barrier.
I can’t imagine hearing the news of a Lockerbie-esque incident on the news, and thinking “Well, X amount of children died on that, but, at least their innocence was not harmed at all”.
With the age we are in now, safety is not something that can be comprimised. Period.
By: Grey Area - 27th March 2010 at 11:58
Ahem…..
“Commercial”?
“Aviation”?
:diablo:
By: DH106 - 27th March 2010 at 09:19
I’m a paedophobe
I give small children sweets to go away
Moggy
LOL – so you’re “grooming” them (giving them sweets) to “manipulate” them (make them go away) :rolleyes::D:o:
Welcome to today’s PC society in all it’s glory. :rolleyes:
By: tommyinyork - 25th March 2010 at 21:39
whats wrong with current airport scanners.
By: Red Hunter - 25th March 2010 at 13:34
I’m a paedophobe
I give small children sweets to go away
Moggy
:D:D
By: Moggy C - 25th March 2010 at 13:32
I’m a paedophobe
I give small children sweets to go away
Moggy
By: Red Hunter - 25th March 2010 at 12:50
I am sure it is, but I think Bmused was exaggerating simply to drive home the point that our interaction with our children and other children is close to being judged paedophilic and it is for us to prove it otherwise.
By: Moggy C - 25th March 2010 at 12:19
We’re living in an age where parents are being arrested and their children taken off of them for a couple of bathtime photos.
I strongly suspect that is an urban myth.
Moggy
By: Buran - 25th March 2010 at 12:08
If they had the guts to use Profiling then children would never be involved – nor would the majority of innocent pasengers.
I don’t know which planet you live on, but here on earth we have teenage suicide bombers, Caucasian Jihad Jane, Latino Jose Padilla, Black Richard Reid and many more like them.
Now try your profiling!
By: Red Hunter - 25th March 2010 at 09:39
The UK is reviewing all post 9/11 legislation and perhaps body scanning is a part of it.
By: steve rowell - 25th March 2010 at 04:53
By: lucas - 5th January 2010 at 12:20
I think it’s ridiculous to assume that the installation of these body scanners will contratict laws about child porn and nudity.
I have passed through San Francisco Airport over the summer as well as Amsterdam’s Schiphol Airport where these machines are already in use. Yes- it does delay the passenger considerably compared to the traditional scanner, but I’m sure we’d all agree that a few seconds is worth it if it means further protection against terrorism.
In the case of child porn, I find that the ‘paranoid’ culture we live in today means that every little action an adult makes with a child is watched upon. This technology is very advanced, yes, however training is provided and the images of the ‘naked’ body is not shown in front of the hundreds of passengers, yet is shown in a seperate computer in a seperate room where the employee’s are monitored.
Also, I agree that I dont think that security will often require children to pass through if they are being profiled. I think that people ought to be less paranoid, there are measures being controlled to avoid the use of child porn and if it works in the Netherlands and the US then it most certainly will do here in the UK.
By: Bmused55 - 5th January 2010 at 12:06
We’re living in an age where parents are being arrested and their children taken off of them for a couple of bathtime photos.
Is it any wonder?
By: swerve - 5th January 2010 at 10:59
…
Terri Dowty, of civil rights group Action On Rights For Children, said the scanners could breach child protection laws, which made it illegal to create an indecent image or a “pseudo-image” of a child.
…
The law clearly distinguishes between naked images of children and indecent images. To be indecent, an image has to be made for an indecent purpose. All those photos parents take of their naked babies, for example, are not indecent. Nor are images made by scanners, for legitimate reasons of public safety.
This is a non-story, based on a (deliberate?) misreading of the law.
By: Sky High - 5th January 2010 at 10:19
Children have been used as mules/carriers of bombs in the past, so no justification to automatically exclude children from scanning. IF these body scanners work (I admit thats an IF!), then its absolutely disgraceful that campaigners would put child matters ahead of the safety of all air passengers, and it says a lot for the screwed up way our society thinks now.
Andy
I will rephrase – children, and many other innocent passengers, would generally be excluded, if the authorities had the guts to use profiling.
I agree with you about the reasons for society’s antipathy towards screening children but my point is a different one, but is linked to the same PC attitudes. Profiling is designed to focus on those more or most likely to be suspect, and therefore it singles out “vulnerable minorities” to use an over-coined phrase.
By: Skymonster - 5th January 2010 at 09:58
If they had the guts to use Profiling then children would never be involved – nor would the majority of innocent pasengers.
Children have been used as mules/carriers of bombs in the past, so no justification to automatically exclude children from scanning. IF these body scanners work (I admit thats an IF!), then its absolutely disgraceful that campaigners would put child matters ahead of the safety of all air passengers, and it says a lot for the screwed up way our society thinks now.
Andy
By: Sky High - 5th January 2010 at 08:51
If they had the guts to use Profiling then children would never be involved – nor would the majority of innocent pasengers.
By: Arabella-Cox - 5th January 2010 at 08:39
I listened to an interesting debate on KRLD Talk Radio, Dallas, TX. it seems that the full body scanner is not all that it is made out to be. I will try find a podcast on their website, it seems that a lot of people over there are not all that happy with the way the situation is being handled.
Sign In
January 5, 2010 at 7:11 am