Creepy "naked scanners" violate child porn laws in UK

Discuss

34 Responses to “Creepy "naked scanners" violate child porn laws in UK”

  1. Anonymous says:

    Not sure of the reasoning, but I read the other day that these machines are illegal here in NZ – for airports here to install them would require Parliament to change the law…

  2. Brainspore says:

    It was only a matter of time before anti-terrorism hysteria had to face off against anti-child-porn hysteria.

  3. cymk says:

    In other news, Al-Qaeda begins recruiting youthful looking midgets.

    • davide405 says:

      No terroris organization “worthy” of the name would bat an eye at recruiting *actual* children for any purpose they consider eligible for self-martyrdom.

      • cymk says:

        While I’m not sure how its worked in the past, but I find it hard to believe that the usual “kill yourself, get 72 virgins” works well on kids. Or is it a simple as putting a bomb on the kid and telling them to go to a specific place?

        • Avram / Moderator says:

          Cymk, “kid” in this context means anyone under 18. Do you think 14-17 year old boys aren’t horny?

          Also, I suspect that we westerners exaggerate the importance of the “72 virgins” story. Suicide terrorists are actually motivated by a combination of political and religious/cultural concerns.

          • cymk says:

            Fair enough. From my understanding the main reasons for terrorism were ideological and religious; that America’s foreign policy is what got us in trouble with middle eastern terrorists (ie: meddling in their country/region or affairs of said country/region) and serving as the world’s police force because the UN has no back bone. I can see it would be easy to get teens and young adults to believe that we (americans) are wrong and worth killing for the previous mentioned reasons, but kids roughly 10 and younger i dont see as buying the ideology (at least not at that age).

  4. brerrabbit23 says:

    Let’s not single out the Brits in this stupidity….

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raklPo9vnmg

  5. strumpet windsock says:

    Whether or not one agrees with the policy making this exception is just ridiculous. Do they plan on outlawing x-rays, MRIs, and other medical imaging of children too?

  6. Anonymous says:

    I’m actually really surprised that so many readers are bashing England about this! The only successful terrorist attack on a plane that I know of didn’t use bombs, and hence these scanners would have been totally useless for preventing that. Plus, these scanners can’t find anything hidden inside the body anyway. I really don’t think the supposed risk of terrorism warrants taking photos of the genitalia of everyone attempting to board a flight!

    Considering there’s been less than one attack a year worldwide since sept 11, most of which weren’t on planes, it seems pretty darn obvious that people simply don’t want to kill each other that often, and the money would be better spent on *anything* else (say..health care? Education?)

  7. Anonymous says:

    Radiation enough for abortions and increased cancer and genetic mutation rates are in those scanners. Why is the commenting on them so continually superficial?

    I plan to use teleconferencing a lot.

  8. Ellavemia says:

    Wow, the work-around is just too obvious. I sense an influx of drug mules with kids, kids packed with plastic explosive, etc. Now instead of just endangering their own grown selves, criminals will have the kids involved too. Brilliant.

  9. Halloween Jack says:

    Yeah, that’ll work. Well-played, England!

  10. Anonymous says:

    *flies plane into these comments*

  11. Anonymous says:

    Will some photoshop guru please make up some
    sexy photos that look like cellphone captures
    of TSA scanner images? Then publish as
    “from TSA agent”.

    Think of it as a social experiment.

    For extra points, have some of those photos be
    post-pubescent tweens.

  12. arkizzle / Moderator says:

    This is clearly the gaping hole in this approach to security. As long as social-sexual taboos exist (pat-downs avoiding genital areas, under 18s not being scanned, etc) it will be nothing more than theatre.

    Axe the taboos, or axe the security? They appear to be mutually exclusive and are making a mockery of each other.

    • Anonymous says:

      “As long as social-sexual taboos exist (pat-downs avoiding genital areas”

      Yeah all these repressed westerners hung up on strangers not patting their genitals!

  13. demidan says:

    So the scanners produce porn? Can you add religious reasons for avoiding the scanners?

  14. Anonymous says:

    Finally, the UK has a solution for the growing American child abuse problem – make all the convicted pedophiles go to work for the TSA.

    Soon we will see airport screening machines manned by Catholic priests and local politicians, with the occasional female high school teacher thrown in for good measure.

    Nice to know that the TSA is watching out for your children…

  15. Xopher says:

    Stupid beyond belief. Like Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab couldn’t pass for 17. How stupid ARE the British authorities, anyway?

    Honestly, Britain, get your act together. Decide which paranoid fear concerns you more; you can’t have it both ways. What are you trying to do, become the US?

  16. efergus3 says:

    And what about the thousands of shoe fetish porn lovers who joined the TSA to sniff shoes?

  17. strangefriend says:

    The same reasoning (that child nudity would violate some law)is why Hippie Hollow near Austin Texas, a county park where nude swimming occurs, doesn’t admit anyone under 18. No, seriously.
    http://www.hippiehollow.com/pages/2257.htm

  18. dm10003 says:

    the problem imams are often british.

    re: child peeping, let me operate the machine, i can’t think of anything more tiresome then naked children, so i’m not likely to care about babyjunk.

  19. Daemon says:

    I’m not an expert, but I’d be rather surprised if they didn’t turn out to violate Canadian child porn and privacy laws.

  20. demidan says:

    72 virgins?, just tell the kid,”wear this,press that and when you get to Amerika you get a PS3″. It’s not like honesty is much of a problem here.

  21. Anonymous says:

    tsa: we fuzz out the vital bits
    terrorists: hide explosives in the vital bits

    tsa: due to security, we need to see your vital bits
    terrorists: hide the explosives in an orifice

    tsa: we *need* to see your orifices…

    the cat-and-mouse scenario gets unpleasant faster and faster.

  22. dimockn says:

    Pravda’s Top Story…
    http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/05-01-2010/111547-obama_helpers-0
    “… In its efforts to institute the ultimate totalitarian state, the US has taken yet another step. For some time now, the US government has been looking for a justification to subject airline passengers to even more humiliating security checks, forcing everyone to undergo full body scanning. The Detroit charade was designed specifically for this purpose…”

  23. demidan says:

    Pravda = truth, and truth = potato.

  24. MyopicTailor111 says:

    Here is a new business model.

    Sell Privacy Defence T-shirts to wear next to your body as a silent protest. They should be a normal T-shirt but have solid hard plastic pieces with letters forming for example insulting profanities mixed with the words: peeper, fascist, snooper, low-life, etc.

  25. emo hex says:

    “Is that a bomb in your pants
    or are you just glad to see me?”

  26. MyopicTailor111 says:

    Absolute security is an impossible goal and if you try the result will only be enormous costs and a totalitarian police state.

    If you force all passengers to be screened by a naked camera, female terrorists can still hide explosives in the vagina. What will be the next step? That the airport security guards poke around inside the vagina of all women?

    If the airports begin with that, terrorists can still hide explosives in their anal. If you introduce compulsory anal exams of all passengers, there is still the option of swallowing explosives that can be remotely detonated.

    If you have compulsory X-ray scans of the stomach of passengers, there is still the option of using airport cleaning staff that can smuggle aboard explosives. Extensive security clearance of all staff at airports is not enough if the terrorists kidnap the children of an employee and force the person to comply. In an attempt to prevent that, wiretapping of all airport staff and surveillance cameras everywhere would be the next logical steps from the security bureaucracy. If air traffic security is considered too tight, there are plenty of other targets: ferries, cruise liners, subways, trains, sport stadiums, tunnels, movie theaters, bridges, sky scrapers, etc.

    My point is this: you have to make a choice between the illusion of “absolute security” on the one hand and privacy, rule of law, freedom and democracy on the other. You can’t have both at the same time.

    I would rather take the one in a billion risk of dying on an airplane across the Atlantic if that is the price to keep freedom and democracy.

    • matt_maslanka says:

      Well put. Thank you. Dealing with the symptoms of a problem is exponentially more difficult than addressing the root causes. Put the stupendous piles of cash from the useless TSA into proven education and self-sufficiency programs. Simplistic to say, but I think going down that path will see far fewer people who feel like being terrorists.

Leave a Reply