Airport Body Scanner Reveals Genitals
The Manchester Airport is using scanners that can draw 3D genitals.
The Register reports that the UK's Manchester Airport is rejecting claims that its new body scanners break child pornography laws. The complaint was spewed forth by children's civil rights group Action on Rights for Children, its protest based on the capabilities of the airport scanners. The airport admits no wrongdoing, stating that the scanners use X-rays and do not make an image.
Apparently the scanners use low doses of radiation to make 3D black and white scans of volunteer passengers; the devices are currently in a 12-month trial run. The scans can reveal objects concealed beneath their clothes including wallets, combs, pens, and anything else. The scan also reveals genitals.
Currently children aren't scanned without their parents' consent. Despite the limitations of the technology, ARCH isn't thrilled that operators can check out children's privates, image or no image. "It's completely unlawful," said the group's spokeswoman Terri Dowty. "Manchester Airport haven't got a leg to stand on"
According to ARCH, their defense relies on a provision of the Protection of Children Act that specifically outlaws "pseudo-photographs" of children. ARCH has previously campaigned against the scanners, claiming that the technology is "disproportionately" intrusive and removes their right to dignity.
- Create Your Dragon Age Character in Advance
- Teen Set on Fire Over Video Game Debt
- The Next Xbox May Use AMD Chips
- Guy Leaves Child Porn-laden Phone at Bar
- Teens Vote Steve Jobs Most Admired Entrepreneur
- Apple Shipping Jailbreak-proof iPhones
- Polaroid Will Make Instant Film, Camera Again
- God is Watching: Cinema Warns Torrenting Pirates
- iPhone 'Pwnage' Jailbreak Software Out for 3.1.2
- Gamers Turn to Downloads During Recession
- Wristband Wirelessly Tracks Kids, Spouces
- Wal-Mart to Offer Contract-free Cell Phone Plans
- Fugitive Busted Via Facebook Friend Request
- Colorado Boy Stuck in Hot Air Balloon
- Judge: No More Royalties for Ringtones!
- Google Launching Online Bookstore
- Survey: Youth Cannot Live Without Internet
- 250 GB PS3 Officially Headed to North America
- Nazi Camp Auschwitz Gets Its Own Facebook Page
"ARCH isn't thrilled that operators can check out children's privates, image or no image. "
Uh whut?
Good, so no more terrorist disguising as women in Hijab.
Good, so no more terrorist disguising as women in Hijab.
Then you just get the terrorists use "Bum bombs" instead, in which case they use a HIGHER powered X-Ray to see everything. If your scratching your head about the Terrorist Bum Bombs just Google it.
"If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles."
-Sun Tzu
Where do you think they will put the bombs next?
I'd rather have my genitals be seen by a 30 yrs. old man in some backroom than have them being blown off.
Just my opinion though.
I'd rather have a 0.000001% chance of having my genitals be blown off than have a 100% chance of some 30 year old man scanning me with an x-ray machine.
Just my opinion though.
To clarify though, the whole kiddy porn argument against it is completely ridiculous. As are privacy concerns. I'd walk around naked in the summer if it wouldn't get me arrested. I'm just not convinced that airport security is anything more useful than DRM, eg annoy me while not stopping the terrorists.
I dont see nothing wrong with it if it insures the saftey of our airports .
yea, and when we have another attack via airplane, we know who to thank. but despite all the death and sadness, we can rest well knowing some guy didn't get a glimpse at kiddy porn via X ray.
At least we know what the security guards do with all the images after hours.
jk
All the airport has to do is guarantee that the people viewing the scanners are 30- or 40-something married women with at least one teenage child. Everyone knows there are only like 2 female perverts for every 10,000 male perverts, if they have children of their own then they aren't likely to even think sexual thoughts about children and if they're married then they're even less likely to be looking at any image with any kind of sexual thought whatsoever...
Low dozes of radiation.. A low doze here another there, so people who travel a lot will turn positive in radiation scans, and will be charged of creating nukes, if cancer doen't kill them first.
All the airport has to do is guarantee that the people viewing the scanners are 30- or 40-something married women with at least one teenage child. Everyone knows there are only like 2 female perverts for every 10,000 male perverts, if they have children of their own then they aren't likely to even think sexual thoughts about children and if they're married then they're even less likely to be looking at any image with any kind of sexual thought whatsoever...
Pal, 30 to 40 something women are some of the most sexually active (and sexiest
This sounds like a good time to announce my latest invention to possible investors: the lead underwear!
Great, thats all i need. Another dose of radiation every time i fly.
Excuse me mam. I need to, um, have you come to this, special, security scanner >
So you're OK if it is your wife or kid being looked, right? I mean most of the people I see working at the "security checks" look like kids or Burger King rejects and you are OK with them looking at your family? Maybe your wife has a nice rack and that 'Security' guy calls his friends over to get a look at her rack too. I'm sure he is only doing it for the 'security' of all the passengers in the friendly sky. I totally understand we need to be safe and we need to focus on security, but most attempts I've seen have been half assed at best. Example: Why do I have to dump my bag for you 3 times at the airport when you don't even search to the bottom of the bag? Why not just check it once really good and then PISS OFF!!
The airlines will probably impose an "excess length" fee.
Rofl. Thats awesome
I don't give a damn, thank you very much
So you're OK if it is your wife or kid being looked, right?
As long as the images can't be stored it doesn't matter. You don't know the person, you won't probably see them again nor will they see you, so if they've seen you naked for a few seconds what difference does it make? They will forget about what they saw when hundreds more people will walk through after you.
If a pervert is doing the checks... well they've scored themselves the perfect job haven't they? But you don't know if the guy/girl is a pervert so it doesn't change anything even if they are.
thought x-ray images reveal bone structures and not much soft tissues. well if you're having an erection when you're being scanned... they don't need a scanner to notice it! just keep the display screen in a private enclosure.
the report mentioned "volunteer" passengers. this is not mandatory or only because it's on a trial run for the moment.
So you're OK if it is your wife or kid being looked, right?
It's interesting how our personal insecurity is the only thing standing in the way of our national security. It's an X-Ray image.
I wonder if they had an issue with dentists taking x-ray images. I could see a perv dentist hanging your mouth up on the wall and trying to french kiss it.
'Action for Rights of Children' isn't a group, it's just one person. Since when did one person with a big mouth and a lot of press attention become a group?
Henceforth, in order to add weight to my random and ill-informed musings, I wish to be none as 'The Anonymous Group' - look for my quotes about eevrything in the gutter press.
Wow. LOL.
I'd rather have a 0.000001% chance of having my genitals be blown off than have a 100% chance of some 30 year old man scanning me with an x-ray machine.Just my opinion though.
Thing is, if not the near 100% chance of some 30 year old man scanning your genitals, the chance of having them blown off will be much higher than 0.000001%.
I wouldn't want that thing scanning me because then everyone will see my absurdly tiny genitals.
...
What?
It doesn't work guys, that is the issue. Scanner or not it's very easy to get something past security.
Let's put in perspective if we had a 9/11 every month flying would still be safer than say driving your car. It wouldn't be close either but I hear nobody suggesting radical solutions to making driving safer. All they have done is make flying a pain in the ass.
Great idea, we can defend our ideals of personal liberties by getting rid of all our personal liberties. This is exactly the effect that terrorists want, getting you all so worked up that you are prepared to give up your freedoms.
In my opinion the real danger is in the x-rays you're exposed to...
even in low doses its cumulative and eventually can cause cancer...
imagine if you're already prone to cancer, this could be the trigger... not to mention the frequent fliers who probably would be receiving more radiation from this than from medical exams...