Full Body Scanners Violate Child Porn Laws

gandhi_2 writes "The Guardian has a story about an ongoing legal battle over the use of full body scanners in the UK. The Protection of Children Act 1978, includes provisions in which it is illegal to create an indecent image or a 'pseudo-image' of a child... which a full body scanner does."

Comments

Ridiculous law

[ramsun]

This is ridiculous. Child porn laws need to differentiate between nude images and obscene/exploitative images. Hopefully this security debate will fuel a rethink.

Re:Ridiculous law

[Itninja]

I agree. But having done some volunteer work inside prisons a few times, and having spent a significant amount of time conversing with pedophillic sex offenders, I can tell you one thing: unlike 'regular' porn, child porn plays to an entirely different audience. People who desire it see any child nudity as erotic.

Re:Ridiculous law

[Anonymous Coward]

That's funny. Some things (greek art, for example) lead me to believe that this isn't a universal truth, but rather a social construct.

I recall when I was 12, all nudity was sexual, precisely because I was never allowed to see any "naughty bits". As an adult, there are plenty of naughty bits to be found if you know where to look and so it's not so thrilling any more.

Perhaps this is simply a construct of the fact that child nudity simply can't be found anymore, anywhere, so people who are attracted to it have a lower tolerance for stimulus.

This is also in light of the fact that from my understanding, the image of "dirty drooling pervert" isn't quite as accurate as most people would like to believe. Of course, your work in prisons may lead you down that path to some extent, but I would hate to think of the conclusions of a sociologist who was only ever allowed to study the prison population of the culture he was trying to understand. :-)

Re:Ridiculous law

[Opportunist]

Someone hand that guy an insightful mod, he's got it. I was pondering all the time what bothers me about this, and this is it!

Pedophiles are a minority. Well, most likely. Let's not assume this is somehow a world of the Paranoia RPG where everyone hates mutants and everyone is one and tries to hide it. Yet we're afraid of a secret pedo sitting behind those scanners and seeing kids nude. We're not worried about him seeing adult females (or males, hey, ya know, some swing that way...) nude, despite the chance of him being (sexually) interested in seeing that being magnitudes higher.

That doesn't bother us? Well, it might not bother our politicians, I don't even WANT to picture them nude, not to mention having to look at them that way because it's my job (shudder!), but it certainly should bother any halfway attractive person on this planet who plans to take a flight.

So, pat down for childs!

[stm2]

Body scanners are optional, if you refuse, you get a pat-down search.
But some pat-dows may constitute sexual assault:
http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/inappropriate-pat-down-searches-during-an-airport-security-screening.html
This may be a catch-22 for TSA :)

Odd timing

[icebike]

Its odd someone gets all the way from the middle east, thru Europe, all the way to Detroit with JUST the sort of device these things are meant to detect at JUST the time their deployment is starting to ramp up.

Re:Government

[Wowsers]

I actually watched this debate live, lets see what the useless freedom hating Home Secretary said on th issue of privacy with these scanners... transcript taken from House of Commons records

5 Jan 2010 : Column 35 The issue of privacy will be important, but all the images are destroyed immediately and the person responsible for the scanning is in a completely separate room, as anybody who has seen the system in Manchester or the version in Glasgow operating will know, so there is no immediate contact between the person doing the imaging and the person being imaged. Privacy considerations are important, but I believe that we can ensure that those who have concerns can be satisfied. I do not foresee a situation in which people can simply object to a body scan. We need to use the scanners perhaps not as the first line of our defence but as the second line, on a random basis.

Now after reading that, two questions come to mind. 1. Why are anyone's images being stored anywhere in the first place, 2. What definition does the word "immediately" deleted mean, one second, one day, one week, one year? Knowing government, the longer the timeframe the better.

It sounds even worse, the person doing the scanning is a locked room by themselves, paedo heaven!

Re:Developed != Civilised

[Tim C]

London had 300 knife incidents on the Underground in a week.

Given I've used the Tube nearly every day for the best part of 15 years at all hours of the day and have never seen a single incident, knife-related or not, you are going to have to back that claim up.

I'm not saying London is crime free, far from it, but I've lived here for 16 years and can count the number of things I've seen or even heard of affecting my friends on my fingers.

Re:Government

[russ1337]

and the public should be able to see the person viewing (but not the screen). We should be able to watch the watchers.....

Re:Government

[imakemusic]

And they should have to be naked. It's only fair.